Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Convert to private arbitration

1) Please convert this to a private arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The suppression of public discussion on this issue played a large role in getting us into the present mess; I rather doubt that it will get us back out. If someone wishes to make a private statement, they can do so via the normal channels. Kirill 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. This is a mess and I've pretty much had it with this whole thing if it continues as it has.--Mantanmoreland 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Order and respect needs to be brought to these proceedings. I'm not participating in this as long as it is a zoo.--Samiharris 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is something to be said for seeing who supports the different parties' ideas. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. The workspace is encouraging continued trolling and harassment. At this point it is doing more harm than good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There are some trolls that are hitting the workshop page, but I don't see it disrupting the case, and I think publicity is vital here. Phil Sandifer 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We have given openness a fair opportunity here and seen where it leads: little evidence has been forthcoming, the workshop page is already a mess, and editors who have the most at stake aren't at liberty to conduct meaningful discussion due to DFTT and in some cases WP:NLT. SPAs are coming here and - regardless of what side they take - that isn't healthy. I see this problem getting worse rather than better as the case progresses. Durova^Charge! 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. There is plenty of evidence presented on the evidence page of this case. Since the previous ArbCom ruling is the primary rationale used by several admins and editors to justify removal of website names that offend them from main article space and to threaten blocks and banishment to the editors who have committed these grevious offenses, we need the ArbCom to clarify exactly what their previous ruling means and the scope of it. Private arbitration will not accomplish this. This issue needs to put to bed with a clear and unambiguous statement from the ArbCom and I trust that they'll be able to do so. Cla68 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This [1]is the kind of trolling that has made this workshop into a mess. It needs to stop, and the offenders need to be dealt with appropriately. If private arbitration is the only way to deal with this kind of behavior, than so be it.--Mantanmoreland 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The case should (and I am sure will) remain open for on-wiki input. However, as per standard procedure, any editor wishing to present sensitive material to the arbitrators privately may e-mail any active arbitrator or non-recused clerk (lists at WP:AC and WP:AC/C) with the request that the mail be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee's internal mailing list. Newyorkbrad 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The can of worms was opened a year ago by the earlier ArbCom decision, such that anything ruled by ArbCom in this issue will at least influence the interpretation and enforcement of policy if not actually make it; due to this, it is inappropriate to be conducting it in secret. If participation is limited to the named parties to this case, it will be biased given that most of them are on the link-banning side of the dispute. *Dan T.* 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As Newyorkbrad said there are already means to present sensitive materials. Just because a case isn't going as you would like it to, doesn't mean that it needs to be taken to a closed session. Some apparently cannot handle opinions that differ from their own. The particulars of the Nathanrdotcom case were far more extraordinary than this one. Zurishaddai 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Private arbitration is bad. No conditionals there, it is just bad. It should only happen when there is some greater evil that can only be avoided by not having public discussion. And some issues with SPA accounts is not a greater evil. -Amarkov moo! 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No question about it, this particular page has gotten out of hand, and the "rutabaga" silliness is but an eddy in the great river of verbiage. It's abundantly clear why it's out of hand too: its's an old, festering problem that has collected a lot of passionate participants on both sides of the issue who have rehearsed their arguments, at length, in the various disputes that led up to this case. There are ways to rein this in besides locking people out of it; but be that as it may, I see two strong reasons for not taking this thing private. First, to echo Amarkov, this is very much a sunshine/access issue, and taking it private sends a bad message. Second, if it is to become private, then who gets to join in? In practice it's going to be very hard to make that determination without either picking up enough people to make the private case as noisy as the public case has been, or setting up a criterion for admission that is going to be plainly unfair to one position or the other. I'd like to see a more disciplined presentation, but that's not a good reason for taking this private. Mangoe 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot more than just one dumb proposal. It's a free-for-all, circus atmosphere that has made this page more of an echo chamber for Wikipedia Review than anything else, replete with regular contributors to that commode dominating the discussion. I've had it with the constant trolling and the irritating references to "ruling cliques" and other Wikipedia Review trash talk.--Mantanmoreland 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Substantial portions of this case cannot be discussed publicly, which gives the remainder a skewed and unseemly appearance. I did my best to participate here, but as I see the direction this has taken the whole thing looks more and more like a bad idea. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, presumably substantial portions of this case cannot be discussed publicly in front of the BADSITES detractors, which would mean that a private case would be stacked against them, would it not? And as far as the "circus atmosphere", Mantmoreland, simply on the basis of counting edits here I would have to number you among the contributors to that atmosphere. I don't like it either, but by and large it would appear to be the fault of the "usual suspects" in these disputes. And from what I've skimmed (because I simply can't keep up otherwise) this page has largely rehashed the same old arguments about policy. What I would hope is that ArbCom can draw a line between what are policy issues and what are their interpretations, because it seems to me that we've hashed the former over enough to be able to identify what has or lacks consensus. Mangoe 23:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That presumption is heavily tainted by bad faith. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I must spell it out. I had guessed that some of the evidence in question would revolve around the actual identities of some of the attacked and other personal matters that we detractors could not be trusted to know. I emphasize "guessed", and I do not mean to claim that we have some right to that knowledge. But I also doubt that we need to go into matters in that detail. Either way, pessimism isn't the same as bad faith. Mangoe 02:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to discuss that with me you're welcome to e-mail. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The process of arbitration can be akin to the making of sausages; however nobody is forcing anyone to participate in the grinding process, just add your ingredients and check back on progress once in while, and wait for the end product. I would also suggest that you never attempt to make sausage by email, or you ever try eating the result. LessHeard vanU 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to either clarify or close without futher policy decision

2) Arbcom is requested to either provide sufficient guidance to allow unambiguous answers in future incidents, or close this case without any new policy issued.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A reasonable request Fred Bauder 02:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The worst flaw in the previous decisions was that there was nowhere near enough clarity to give us unambigous "do this, under these circumstances" guidance. To date, the proposed decision here makes that problem worse rather than better, by emphasizing the philosophy without clarifying the conditions in any useful way. I request that Arbcom either clarify adequately, or at the very least don't close this making it worse... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Moratorium on invoking BADSITES

1) Until this case is closed, links will not be removed as referring to "attack sites". This does not apply to links introduced as attacks or new links made to attacks themselves, which can be removed per existing policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It has come to my attention that User:61.60.74.118 (contributions) is erasing established links in some of the articles on controversial sites. We need some stability. Mangoe 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a parallel moratorium on adding links to the sites under discussion until this is settled? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the five or so specific sites that have been named? Mangoe 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moratorium on changes to WP:NPA external links section

2) Until this case is closed, the WP:NPA statements on external links should not be changed unless a clear consensus to do so is obtained. When such changes are made, notice should be posted in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. WP:NPA is currently the nexus for the policy discussion, and the changes to the external links section are giving this case a moving target to shoot at. Mangoe 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder recused

3) Fred Bauder is recused from this case.

3.1) The Wikipedia community requests that Fred Bauder recuse himelf from this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 04:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Why don't all the arbitrators recuse themselves and we all can go home? This is silly. (Wait a second, I am home...)--Mantanmoreland 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per messages on Bauder's talk page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously support this, but find it unlikely that it will be enacted unless fred himself makes the decision to recuse or step down. Viridae^Talk 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What little precedent there is suggests that each arbitrator is the arbiter of his or her own participation or recusal. Compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision. Newyorkbrad 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Although our horribly stupid arbitration system has no means to recuse an arbitrator against their will, I support this. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think recusing against their will is probably a bad idea, but obviously, there has to be some process in place for RECALLING arbcom memmbersor or "de-arbcomming" against their will. May or May not be appropriate for Fred, but sooner or later, this is going to come up where an arbcom member short-circuits mid-term. --Alecmconroy 03:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for recusal. There's no conflict of interest asserted. The only reasons given on Fred's talk page are disagreements with his already-expressed views. The Wikipedia community has endorsed Fred's participation on the ArbCom. A few loud voices shouldn't override that large consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If his "already-expressed views" at the time he ran for arbcom included an endorsement of vandalism of BLPs (and that "straight man" principle was nothing short of an outright explicit rejection of NPOV), it's news to me. —Random832 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 3.1 as an alternative. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that is needed as a new proposal, it is fairly clear that at least someone the community supports this. Viridae^Talk 02:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, in totally new constitutional waters here. My take: (phrased in the abstract because the voices on Fred's talk page truly could be just a vocal minority) :

1) Arbiter X has lost the confidence of the community, and there is consensus he should recuse himself from a case, and these requests have been communicated to him. 2) Let X decide for himself whether or not to recuse/resign, and let him continue out the case as an active arbiter.

3) If X decides not to recuse/resign, that might be further evidence of incapacity. Undertake a secondary process to "recall" or "de-arbcom". Such a process could take multiple forms including: 4a) a RFA-like procedure that assesses confidence and lack-of-confidence--- if consensus exists X should be recalled, consensus is king. Or 4b) a new arbcom case filed AGAINST X, requesting he be "de-arbcommed". Or 4c) The obligatory direct appeals to Jimbo and the Board.

By far the best solution for everyone is one where X just apologizes, voluntarily recuses/resigns, and is applauded by the community for many years of hard work. --Alecmconroy 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How many people have expressed a lack of confidence versus how many expressed confidence in the last ArbCom election? It would be extermely disruptive to future ArbCom cases if a small number of loud voices can force duly-appointed ArbCom members off of a case simply because they disagree with his proposals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Loud voices? There has been multiple people expressing their dissatisfaction once. Thats not loud voices. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Fred Bauder received 251 support votes, and 90 oppose votes in 2006. By comparison, a dozen complaints don't really seem to represent the "community". Fred Bauder is just one of eleven active ArbCom members, so he won't decide any of this case on his own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to his actions now, September 2007. daveh4h 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very relevant. Opponents haven't charged a single specific cause for recusal, just that he has "lost the confidence of the community". A handful of users does not represent the community, and they certainly should not override the decision of a much larger segment of the community, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a small subset of the community DOES represent the community - as evinced by your use of the support and oppose percentages from the arbcom elections. Viridae^Talk 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to go based on the raw vote numbers-- in the Dec 2006, candidates who received less than 84% support were NOT appointed to arbcom. If we held a similar vote now on Fred, and he got more than 84% support, that would be automatic proof he still has the confidence of the community necessary for an arbiter. Ultimately, however, i don't think is a useful way to start trying to measure consensus-- we oculd expect ALL arbiters to drop in support once they start ruling on actual cases, so I don't know how to measure "loss of confidence". Hopefully, fred will withdraw Clown (and possibly other questionable proposals), apologize for his behavior, and agree to recuse himself from this case one and future cases with similarity to the current issues. If he doesn't-- i think we have to figure out what circumstances an arbcom members have lost the confidence of the community, and then see if fred is such a case. --Alecmconroy 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that he shouldn't be an arbitrator at all. I'm certainly not. It's just that, in this particular case, he is too biased to arbitrate neutrally. -Amarkov moo! 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: the proposal--It's hard to say if it is a vocal minority or not. It's certainly not a nice thing to have to bring up, especially considering what Fred has done for Wikipedia, so I'm not surprised there is no widespread movement to remove Fred from arbcom. But, I agree with Fred recusing himself, at least in this case. The soon to be notorious clown proposal accurately sums up why. daveh4h 04:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Mr. Bauder feels that people who have a grievance with our editors or articles and create attack pages as some sort of revenge are being clowns (or at least acting like clowns)...just a guess. If Fred was very supportive of linking to harassment, would the opposite side be asking for the same recusal? Maybe.--MONGO 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I'd agree with him if that is what he thought. I'm not disputing that. If he said it to me privately, or among a small group of editors, I would chuckle. Making the joke or the serious proposal (whatever it is) on the proposed decision page is the concern, in my opinion. Perhaps I am expecting too much and being idealist. daveh4h 05:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. An arbitrator expressed an opinion on the outcome of this case when accepting it for arbitration. That is at least as much of a reason to ask for recusal but no one did so. --Mantanmoreland 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I support. I had found much of Fred Bauders input bewildering, in that I was seeing proposals regarding persons and entities that formed no part of the original request, but believed that it was my unfamiliarity with the process and that I was too chickenshit to raise the issue directly. I was also taken aback by some of the suggestions and comments, but again put it down to my lack of experience. It was a relief to find that my view was being shared by others. LessHeard vanU 12:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the direction that Fred originally took this to be unfortunate, if not missing the point entirely; and it's hard to decide whether the "clown" proposal was more up Wikipedia Review's or Dan Tobias's alley as a dadaist response. Nevertheless I don't think recusal is the right action. Mangoe 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a dadaist now? I want my Dada... or my Momma! *Dan T.* 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Mantanmoreland is right, maybe it is absurd to ask an arbitration member to recuse himself in a case where he has illustrated poor judgment on more than one thing. I just feel that clown proposal, now wiped from the record, was a good representative of Fred's poor judgment in this case. I'm not prepared to change anyone's opinion on this. If you are willing to look at Fred's behavior in this case, have a look, if you are not willing then you've already made your mind up anyway. The feeling is that this recusal discussion is a distraction, and there are certainly enough of those in this case, so I will drop it for now. daveh4h 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

"No personal attacks" in articles

1) Our no personal attacks policy applies to personal attacks on Wikipedia, and does not extend to content disputes in the article namespace.

1.1) Our no personal attacks policy applies to personal attacks on Wikipedia, and does not extend to good-faith content disputes in the article namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. *Dan T.* 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed The bottom line: "on Wikipedia" means on Wikipedia, including article nams-spaces. This principal is a blatant attempt to use ArbCom to nullify policy. More detailed comment: this simply creates a huge loophole in our NPA policy that enables editors to accomplish in articles what they cannot on talk pages. WP:BLP already provides a precedent for applying the values of NPA to articles themselves. Here we are just going one step furthe to apply this to mention of living persons in other articles besides their own biographies. Phil Sandifer and David Gerard and others have claimed that we must defend NPOV at all costs and that NPOV trumps NPA in all cases. This is not true. It is crucial to note that NPOV is not merely a content policy, it is a personal behavior policy too - it explicitly explains that its purpose is to provide an environment in which diverse editors can work together even when they hold antagonistic views. In this aspect of NPOV, NPOV and NPA are partners and not in opposition. NPOV itself provides its own threshold for inclusion: notability. I would argue that a criticism of a person must be a notable view for NPOV to justify its inclusion in an article. Criticisms of Essjay reported in the mainstream press are an example of criticisms I would accept NPOV as requiring us to include ... but even those criticisms were not "personal attacks." I have yet to see any personal attack against a Wikipedia editor that rises to any standard of notability. To allow personal attacks against editors in article pages would defeat the purpose of NPOV, which is to promote a community of people of divergent views who can work together to create a quality encyclopedia. It turns NPOV into a weapon against the encyclopedia - and turns the encyclopedia into a tawdry tabloid. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The absence of this provision creates a huge loophole where over-sensitive people can claim that links that have no attacking intent whatsoever, such as links to the official site of a person or company included on the article about them, or links to non-attacking articles that happen to be in the same domain as an attack, are "attacks" and need to be vigorously removed. This proposal puts a stop to such overreaction. *Dan T.* 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your labeling editors "over sensitive" is ad hominem and a sign of bad faith. If you happen to get into an edit conflict with someone it doesn't matter whether they are oversensitive or insensitive - what matters is the quality of the edit and its compliance with policy. Now if you happen to get into an edit war with someone who is clearly hyper-sensitive, I advise you to take it through the regular dispute resolution process. But you cannot use this forum or policy as a way to ban some blanket category of "over-sensitive" people. That violates the spirit of NPOV which demands that we be inclusive of points of view, and the correlary policy, AGF without which NPOV would not function. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what a "good faith content dispute is?" Isn't the accusation that one is making or supporting a personal attack in efect accusing one of acting in bad faith? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Does accusing somebody of something automatically make it so? *Dan T.* 14:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You endorse the principle so I assume you know what it means - therefore, you should be able to answer my question. I asked it in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation: What about 'good faith content dispute' needs explaining? See Assume good faith. In short, if there is a reasonable explanation for why someone would think that a link is beneficial that should be the default assumption of why they added it... not that they are engaging in nefarious skullduggery to lure unsuspecting users to an evil website where they may be corrupted by hidden attacks against all that is good and righteous and Wikiesque. :] --CBD 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I would say this: although an editor may add a link in good faith, if the link is to a cite that directly attacks an editor of Wikipedia, the good faith - or likely absense of it - of the person(s) administring or posting to the linked cite is in question and relevant. I say this only in regard to comments that directly attack Wikipedia editors. regardless of the intentions of the Wikipedia editor who adds the link, by so doing a statement addressed by one person to or about a Wikipedia editor is entered into the article. That is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support the sentiment, with minor tweak that NPA doesn't apply to "Good Faith" content disputes. Obviously, somebody could just vandalize an article, inserting a totally irrelevant personal attack into a completely random page, and I think that, an obviously bad faith edit, would violate NPA. But the general sentiment is good. --Alecmconroy 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, proposed 1.1. Melsaran (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks applies to all interactions between Wikipedia editors. A good faith comment during a dispute is not a personal attack, and would not be interpreted as such, so why would we need to "clarify" this? A personal attack is just that: an attack on the person. It's not acceptable whatever the context. We don't need to legislate Clue, if someone is behaving like a dick then we can quietly point it out to them, if they don't learn or are intent on pursuing ad-hominem arguments then we simply block them. I really can't see the purpose of this principle as worded under 1 or 1.1, neither seems to me to reflect anything relevant to this case. -Guy (Help!) 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd think 'the purpose of this principle' was obviously to repudiate and stop the blocks which have been made for 'personal attacks' which were clearly nothing of the sort. --CBD 09:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that doesn't make sense. The principle refers specifically to personal attacks. Now you are saying they are not personal attacks. Which is it? The principle says personal attacks so it must be referring to personal attacks. If a statement is not a personal attack then this principle doesn't even apply. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... no, the principle (both versions) is clearly stating that attempts to improve articles are NOT personal attacks. --CBD 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is never allowed, even if an editor thinks it is an improvement. It sounds like what you are asying is that these do not really constitute personal attacks. And if they are not personal attacks, there is no need to discuss the NPA policy as it does not apply. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The NPA nutshell specifies "comment on content, not on the contributor" which seems to infer that NPA does not refer to article content. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but some people are citing NPA as a justification for removing external links in articles. Melsaran (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing two distinctions: comment versus commentator, and talk page versus article page. The policy in a nutshell employs the first distinction. It does not refer to the second distinction. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and not a distinction obvious in looking over NPA (perhaps needing an example?) However, I still read the NPA nutshell as only disallowing comment directed at the contributor(s) and whatever violation the content within the article is guilty off is not covered by NPA. An analogy is murder; we prosecute the alleged murderer, not the crime of murder itself. LessHeard vanU 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support as arguabl;y otherwise public figures could avoid criticism by becoming wikipedians, and wikipediansd as individuals need to be primarily responsible for their own security, good reputaion etc and their possible inability to do this should not get in the way of writing a good encyclopedia (ie the main space), SqueakBox 03

23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, private individuals who become Wikipedians apparently give up their right not to be attacked.Proabivouac 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

2) The primary intent of principle 3 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO was to prevent harassment. Evaluation of the posting of links should be viewed in the context of the likely intent of linking, the overall tone and content of the site, the context, and whether the link is validly supporting encyclopaedic content as a verifiably reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support.--Mantanmoreland 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot I was a party. My comment should have gone here. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; may need some context though, for people unfamiliar with the ED arbitration. Maybe a link to the "original ruling". Melsaran (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sorted. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with some, but not all. The "likely intent of linking" is relevant when deciding whether or not to block and editor. The MONGO ruling said that "Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking" — an extremely wise precaution. However, if some stalking site gets hold of my home address and someone decides to post the link on my talk page (instead of using private email) in order to "inform me about it", I expect my friends and any responsible user or administrator to remove it immediately, without regard to whether the person who posted it was an idiot or a troll. ElinorD (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know what you mean - but the likely intent of posting that link would be harassment. OK, calls for speculation, but WP:NOT moot court, we're supposed to work on Clue not strictly legalistic interpretation. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• That comment is a bit of a straw man... people have traditionally been given great deference in deciding what content is appropriate on their own talk pages, so no specific policy is needed to delete something you find bothersome there (or to let your friends do it for you). Anyway, I've never noticed any home addresses or phone numbers on the sites that are generally cited as "attack sites" around here (no, I'm not asking for anybody to post links to cases where they've actually published such things, if any!) *Dan T.* 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don Murphy's forums posted the names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least two editors, and one of them was me. I am sure I remember links to this being posted on Wikipedia, but speedily removed. Doesn't matter if they were, as links to threads on Murphy's forums undoubtedly have been linked. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• And people then went beyond this to try to remove all links to anything in his site, including the link to it as his official site on the article about him... and this didn't fly. This provision attempts to codify this sensible distinction. *Dan T.* 12:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Dan, I have seen an editor's supposed home address and phone number on two attack sites, and a work phone number on a third one. I don't intend to say which sites they were. I'm quite willing to email the information to the committee. And as for being a straw man argument, I have seen people in favour of allowing links using that very argument (the supposed need to inform an editor of something published about him) as a reason to justify allowing them. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• You obviously didn't find this information via a Wikipedia link, so tThe ability to acquire these details are not hindered by the banning of such links. I suppose that the response is that mention of the site names provides a means, but this disregards the potential benefit of being able to link to a site for other purposes. LessHeard vanU 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I "obviously didn't find this information via a Wikipedia link". I can't see how that can be obvious, especially since in all three cases, I did find it from a Wikipedia link. ElinorD (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• A direct link from WP to the information? Or a link from WP to the site hosting the content, which after further investigation revealed the information? I have, in any case, struck my earlier assertion pending clarification. LessHeard vanU 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• In one case, a direct link to the information. In other cases, a link to the site, which, within thirty seconds, and without necessitating a lot of information on how to navigate the site, revealed the information. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not actually that relevant. If a site has content which outs or harasses an editor, there should be a presumption against linking; actually it is always the responsibility of those proposing a link in article space to gain consensus for its inclusion, if it is disputed, and in meta-debate any good faith removal a link to a site which contains outing or harassment should be respected unless there is a compelling reason to link. Where the debate centres around the link itself, there will always be friction, of course. In such cases, arguments from principle ("Never link to attack sites!" / "BADSITES is rejected, link it!") are both wrong. Every link should be considered on its merits, and with regard to the likely damage, the degree of offence caused to our attacked editors, and the motives of the people creating the content. Posting links to Bagley's blog is simply wrong. Not because of BADSITES but because it is enabling a banned troll. We should not link to the ravings of a rebuffed POV-pusher any more than we should allow him to abuse his Talk page to attack people - the correct response is "go away". Guy (Help!) 14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• To me this reaches to the rotten core of the proposed BADSITES policy, and why I disagree in the principle of banning links to sites that has or had hosted attack material; whatever Bagley's blog has or does contain should not limit WP's ability to be able to link to a specific part of it in some future scenario where it is both prudent and desirous to do so. The ability to then locate to less savoury content is a regrettable but necessary evil. In the meanwhile the existing policies are sufficient to disable to linking to the personal attack material. LessHeard vanU 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think it is all that relevant. When the first attack on the TNH article came up, there was of course no direct link to the offending passage. The only way I found it was by seeing the BADSITES alarms go off, and then laboriously digging through several hundred comments to a blog post. Quite literally, hundreds: IIRC the offending comment was somewhere in the mid 300s, and in fact was so brief I had to search twice to find it. Even on Wikipedia Review it takes a certain effort to find these identifications. In general, you have to know that they are there to be found; and if you know to look, then you don't need a link from Wikipedia. And if a link is deleted per BADSITES, then you know to look, even if the searching be extremely tedious. The ASM.net case is even stronger evidence for the case that we have opposing principles that need to be balanced. If the incident is even to be mentioned (and it's clear that it ought to be), the citation supplies the link whether or not we do. In that case we cannot remove the link without bowdlerizing the article to remove the whole incident (including any citations to articles that name the site), so we have to choose between censorship and references to personal attacks. That has been the problem from the beginning with BADSITES: it has always stood as an absolute principle without relation to other principles. Mangoe 00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The strawman part is the idea that we need a categorical ban on the material to allow people to remove it from their own talk pages or to specify what material others can remove. They already have that prerogative and no one is calling for its elimination. ShaleZero 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are by definition bad faith

3) Personal attacks on other contributors are, by definition, made in bad faith. Our policy banning personal attacks does not extend to good-faith efforts, however misguided, to improve Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this actually makes the needed distinction perfectly - it's the line between "lulz Admin X is really named George" and "Hey, I just saw this link on Slashdot and it seems kinda problematic. What's up?" And, for that matter, between "Admin X is ghey (link to ASM)" and "Judd Bagley administers the website antisocialmedia.net (link)." Phil Sandifer 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. If something is harmful, we remove it, regardless of the intentions of the person who put it there. Intentions are relevant in deciding what action to take concerning the person responsible; they are not relevant in deciding what action to take concerning the possible damage. If someone puts something poisonous in the soup, thinking it will improve the flavour, and not realising it's poisonous, then of course we don't put him in jail. But we make sure that we don't drink the soup or serve it to others. ElinorD (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Seems pretty reasonable. *Dan T.* 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. I also agree this makes the distinction perfectly. This would restore the whole MONGO / BADSITES issue back to its original legitimate purpose: to stop malicious, intentionally cruel, bad-faith harassments--- not to inadvertantly chill good-faith attempts to improve the project. --Alecmconroy 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Good faith begats good faith. LessHeard vanU 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Most often, personal attacks are posted because their posters believe them to be true. The more relevant question is whether Wikipedia should publish them.Proabivouac 08:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's been pretty much like this all along--and it doesn't work. Typically, a BADSITES enforcer can just take the link out and "warn" the user, then claim that if he inserts the link a second time, he's no longer acting in good faith the second time since he did it after being warned. Ken Arromdee 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support Why would anyone make a personal attack in good faith?--Phoenix 15 12:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4) Links and references to off-site harassment of Wikipedia editors may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: Why should what we include in an article depend on whether the content involves a Wikipedia editor or not? Paul August ☎ 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. This acknowledges that editors have an express right, but not an obligation, to remove references to off-site attacks. Whether they do so or not would be dealt with on an individual basis. --Mantanmoreland 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal specifically mentions "Wikipedia editors". My question is why? You say it is meant to recognize the right "to remove references to off-site attacks". I presume you mean off-site attacks of Wikipedia editors. So my question is what is the argument for why we should treat Wikipedia editors any differently than any other person in this regard? Paul August ☎ 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I agree with you, I proposed 4.1 as an alternative. We should not link to harassment sites whoever the victim is, unless we have a really good reason. Better to document the harassment form secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Paul: First of all, when we're dealing with an article that involves a living person who isn't a Wikipedian, we sometimes leave out information which could be inserted — the name of a dead baby, the names of victims of a crime, for example. Sometimes, we delete articles about living people who are of borderline notability, simply because they're not so notable that we need an article about them in order to maintain credibility as an encyclopaedia. Someone might conceivably want to look up Wikipedia for an article about that fat Chinese boy, but we deleted it. We have deleted articles about murder victims who were only notable because of the murder, even though there were plenty of Google hits. If our main focus had been to provide as much information as possible for anyone who might want to look something up, and we hadn't been trying to balance that with Doing The Decent Thing, then there would be a lot more information available on Wikipedia. However, we do try to Do The Decent Thing, even when it means providing less information on Wikipedia, and even when it involves doing without an article that we could keep.

Secondly, even if we're completely unmoved by ethical concerns, or by a wish not to have people harmed in the real world, there is such a thing as a trade-off. We have administrators who have done fantastic work (users as well, but it's normally admins who are harassed). They've written featured articles (sometimes several); they've worked on policy pages. They've taken on difficult editors. They've performed difficult blocks. In some cases, they've tagged and deleted thousands of improperly-tagged non-free images. They've rolled back vandalism, and blocked vandals. I think that if you calculate the extent to which they have improved the encyclopaedia, and then weigh it against the potential compromise to the quality of the encyclopaedia if we disallow a link which might slightly enhance a not-very important article, you'd have to admit that the two cannot be compared. We have lost administrators because we haven't managed to provide an atmosphere where the harassment off-wiki was not to be transported here. That is the answer to your question. First, we do the decent thing for non-Wikipedians. Secondly, it's to our advantage to keep good and productive editors. And we don't keep them by accepting their featured articles and their vandal reverting and image cleanup, and then refusing them a small amount of protection just because a certain link might make a slight improvement to an article that we could probably do without anyway. ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this strikes a balance between linking to off-site harassment and the WP:NPOV concerns that have been raised. I think this would be particularly valuable in situations such as the one we are facing here, in which a corporate officer sets up a website one of whose aims is to harass Wikipedia editors in furtherance of his employer's perceived interests. It's a good general principle, but it applies in this case which involves a very unique website.--Mantanmoreland 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We might say 'should' instead of 'may.' I'm dubious about crafting general policy to accommodate unique cases. Those are better handled by sensibly applying and ignoring existing rules. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is too weak here. I suggest "if doing so does not affect the quality of the article," and have proposed as much below. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I oppose this; making any consideration related to whether Wikipedians feel "harrassed" by something be a part of the editorial process at all is inherently non-neutral, as it's giving the feelings of Wikipedians special status. Editorial decisions should be made based on editorial considerations, period. Links added for good-faith encyclopedic purposes should never be treated as if they were harrassment or personal attacks. *Dan T.* 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Having ones violation of policy, guidelines, rules, law of the land, and other dubious practices being linked to off-wiki may indeed have an editor feeling "harrassed", but it is still legitimate comment. LessHeard vanU 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment In view of the opinions stated regarding the wording above and the lack of responses to the refined wordings suggested below, it may be that the term harassment is too vague (per Amarkov below) to allow debate to develop? I still oppose on the basis of "harassment" LessHeard vanU 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely oppose, per dan. Viridae^Talk 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As worded, oppose; "harassment" is to vague. There are, however, some cases where harassment of editors should be removed, even without a clear editorial reason to do so. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. "References to" harassment? Now you're not even talking about links and sourcing - you're talking about scrubbing the content of articles. ShaleZero 06:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support With one caveat: such sites must have achieved a reasonable level of notability which is already a requirement for NPOV. In my experience, no attack-site directed against Wikipedians is notable except to those people who like attack sites, which really is a fringe group of Wikipedia readers. I consider a link to an attack site to be a form of personal attack. NPA is clear: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia" - anywhere means anywhere. I have yet to see any =cogent explanation of why it is important to name attack sites in an article and provide a link to them. Never. They are gratuitous, and to insist on including reference to an attack site gratuitously is to me evidence of bad faith. I have yet to see any example where adding such reference/link is at all important to making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The group who wants to suppress all mention of so-called "attack sites" is also a fringe group. I think a "reasonable person principle" should be applied where something is termed a personal attack when a reasonable person would perceive it as such, not solely on the subjective feelings of anybody who chooses to declare some broad category of things as "attacks". Could somebody who was traumatized as a child by being nearly crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas in a freak farming accident insist that any use of the word "rutabaga", even in the article on this vegetable, was an attack on him/her? Insisting that all links and mentions of a particular site, even if done without specific reference to a particular person, are "attacks" is such an overreaction. *Dan T.* 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Our focus should be on "creating the best encyclopedia article possible". This policy would shift the focus to "creating the least objectionable encyclopedia article possible, so long as it doesn't actually violate NPOV". --Alecmconroy 10:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you think attacks on editors are necessary to create quality encyclopedia articles, I think you have an odd idea about what makes for a quality encyclopedia article. Frankly I suspect that to suggest that Wikipedia editors are themselves so notable as to merit inclusion in encyclopedia articles is so self-aggrandizing that it would damage the reputation of the project. Certainly none of the people who have been targets of the attack sites (with the single exception of Jimbo himself), and none of the wikipedia editors who are involved in tis arbitration or connected to any of the articles in contention, are in any way notable. And none of the attack sites themselves are notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also rather self-aggrandizing to claim that, if a site happens to have an attack on a particular editor somewhere within it, then all links and references to anything in that site, in any context, for any purpose, anywhere, are actually all about you if you're that editor, and need to be construed to be personal attacks on you and removed. So, if you find that the article on palindromes links to a clever example of a palindrome that happens to be in the same site as the attack (on a totally different page in it, and the link was added way before the attack even existed), then suddenly that has retroactively become an attack on you. Me, me, me... it's all about me! Everything centers on me! But that's exactly how the link policy has actually been applied, and that is why it is being so vigorously opposed. *Dan T.* 13:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Red herring. Sites which happen to have an attack on a Wikipedia editor don't meet the definition of attack sites, at least not in any examples I've seen. The problem is mis-identification, not context. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you did not read the first sentence of my "strongly support" Slrubenstein | Talk 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4a) Links and references to off-site harassment may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article. Notable or significant harassment may be documented by reference to independent review in secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good idea. --Mantanmoreland 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Slightly revised version, which is more to the point per Paul's comment above. We should not be linking to any harassment without a compelling reason. We have problems with attack sites and blogs being linked to biographies all the time, attacks on editors are a ctually a minor part of this problem. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that there be a compelling reason seems infinitely reasonable to me. I think the real debate is, what constitutes a compelling reason. We need to balance the potential for harm against someone versus the notability of the view. In most of the actual cases we are discussing, the potential for harm far outweighs the notability, but maybe a loser reading of some of those cases can help us develop more constructive policy-proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and in practice this is pretty much what is happening, give or take the occasional overzealous application. Most of the more clueless removals are swiftly reverted with no lasting dispute (e.g. michaelmoore.com). In my view we need to clarify (which was the purpose of the original request) not repudiate or extend the original ruling. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Far more reasonable than proposals centered on Wikipedia editors. I still disagree, but under these terms it's no longer an NPV issue. ShaleZero 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note we never linked to any off-site harassment. For instance, in the case of michaelmoore.com, we linked to the site because it was his official website; the link was removed because at that time, the site happened to contain an article that tried to out the identity of a Wikipedia editor. We didn't link to the site because it contained information about an Wikipedia editor, but because it was Michael Moore's official website and thus relevant to the article. The harassment of the Wikipedia editor was not covered in the article, so we wouldn't even want to "documen[t] it by reference to secondary sources". Melsaran (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be included in articles

4b) Links and references to off-site harassment may be included in an article, if the material is necessary for neutral presentation of a notable view. Notable or significant harassment is better documented by reference to independent review in secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not understand what "neutral" means in this context. Can Tom provide some amplification, of what he means? For examle, if I were to write "Daniel Brandt is a cock-sucker" and Brandt responds "Slrubenstein is a prick" i can see ho wyou might think that including both statements makes an article neutral. But we could also just remove both statements as personal attacks (comply with WP:NPA) or unencyclopedic (comply with WP:NOT) and we would still be maintaining neutrality. So if you don't mean this, what do you mean?

No thanks. This is a bit like having a finding that beans may not be stuffed up your nose Guy (Help!) 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of the BADSITES problem is conflating "this links to an attack" and "this links to a website which has an attack somewhere on the site". Much of the rest is vagueness about exactly what "attack" means. If "links to harassment" is interpreted reasonably--direct linking, posting of personal information--I'd agree that links to harassment should not be included. If it's been interpreted the way a lot of people have interpreted it, then yes, links to harassment should be included. (And what's this about "references to" harassment? Of course we need to include references to harassment.) Ken Arromdee 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4c) Links and references to off-site harassment may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the quality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This, I think, broadens the suggestion to the proper level. All things being equal, we ought not link to an attack site. Phil Sandifer 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In general the burden is on whoever wants to include material to justify it. "may be excluded...if" seems to reverse that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not necessary. The problem is not that attacks were or were not linked in articles, it was a mistaken identifying of sites as attack sites. That was the problem. I've yet to see anything that could justly be called an attack site linked in an article (maybe it's posted on response elsewhere here). Guy (Help!) 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be included in articles

4d) Links and references to off-site harassment may be included in an article, if doing so improves the quality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:::

Proposed. I think this is the wording that emphasizes the focus is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just a variation of 4b) Circeus 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that 4b) says include if "necessary for neutral presentation of a notable view". I prefer to include material if it "improves", rather than "is necessary". With 4b, someone could admit material would "improve" the article by making it more comprehensive, but still exclude it on the grounds that it's not "absolutely necessary". --Alecmconroy

Can you provide an example of how it would improve the quality? This seems very vague right now, and being so vague I can't say whether I agree or disagree. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore is a notable person with a notable website. An article that links to his site is more informative than one which does not. This will remain true as long as Moore is a highly notable individual-- regardless of what he says about Wikipedia on his site. --Alecmconroy 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. We do not link to the actual harassment, we merely link to websites that are relevant to the article. The fact that a website features an article that attempts to harass a Wikipedia editor doesn't mean that we shouldn't link to the website itself. Wikipedia is written for the readers, and omitting relevant links degrades the quality of an article. Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to tell people that it's fine to link attacks in article space? This is infinitely worse than not saying anything either way. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the whole series of proposals regarding including / excluding / adding / removing personal attacks in articles; let's make editorial decisions in articles on editorial considerations, without regard to whether something might be construed as an attack on a Wikipedia editor. *Dan T.* 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support if the link somehow improves the article I don't really know how it could but if in some strange way it does then it might be okay If the editor gives permission--Phoenix 15 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to websites that attack Wikipedians

4e) Links to relevant websites (such as the official website of the subject) may be included in an article if doing so improves the quality of the article, even if these websites contain attacks targeted at Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is written for the readers, not the editors, and one should not remove a relevant external link just because it may contain material Wikipedia editors find offensive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:::

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The presence or absence of attacks should not be made an issue if not relevant to the purpose of linking to the site. *Dan T.* 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could be sensible and draw a rational distinction between an attack site and a site which happens to have some residue of a Wikipedia dispute. Not one instance has yet been cited of a site which could reasonably be described as an attack site - that is, a site which makes a habit and practice out of harassment and outing Wikipedia editors - which is a valid link in article space. Until such an example is forthcoming, we have no evidence on which to base any ArbCom rulings; rulings based on hypothetical cases are not generally not considered necessary or appropriate. The fundamental problem here is the mis-identification of sites which are, by any rational assessment, not "attack sites" per the intention of the MONGO arbitration. It would be a huge mistake to provide a block exemption for attack sites in article space on the basis that one day there might be one whose operator is notable, when actually that would be a matter for editorial judgement when that day arises. Right now, we have a few manifestly non-attack sites falsely (in good faith) identified as attack sites, and there is a need to clarify what constitutes an attack site as a result, and what constitutes harassment when it comes to linking an attack site. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sites of well-known individuals (such as michaelmoore.com and nielsenhayden.com/makinglight) are not "attack sites" and we have linked to them for years, until they posted material about Wikipedia editors that was considered offensive, and then the links were *suddenly* removed from article space. Of course, it would have been different were those sites real attack sites; that is, if their primary purpose was to harass people. These sites are not primarily meant to harass people, but yet still they are aggressively removed from articles. Melsaran (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How can the identification of "manifestly non-attack sites" as 'attack sites' be "in good faith" despite also being a "mis-identification by any rational assessment"? The people who edit warred over Michael Moore, Making Light, Don Murphy, et cetera were all taking a position that was neither "reasonable" nor even "rational", but acting in good faith? How does that work? And given your statement that 'not one instance' of proper application has been cited... doesn't that perforce indicate that all of the numerous examples which have been cited were IMproper? With consequential implications for what the actuality of this practice has been? You are describing an 'attack sites' practice which has never actually existed... people are objecting, strongly, to the practices (e.g. policy rewrites, 3RR exceptions, blocks for including valid links, complete censorship of sites involved in pre-existing dispute with a single Wikipedian, et cetera) which have actually been taking place. You describe all this as 'mis-application', but... that is, to all appearances on this page and the evidence, the entire application of the practice. Where's the 'good' stuff? --CBD 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno... it sure seems like, just as somebody said about one of the so-called "attack sites" in another of the many debates earlier, the BADSITES policy and its relatives, and the attempts at enforcement of all of these policies, are all bathwater and no baby. But their supporters remain like the person who, on seeing a huge pile of crap, remains convinced that there must be a pony in there somewhere. *Dan T.* 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks may be excluded from articles

4f) Links and references to off-site harassment may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article, and if they are not citations of material in the text.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as (a) getting away from the bias towards editors, and (b) putting WP:V to the fore. Mangoe 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not suppress criticism of itself

5) As we are a top-10 Web site with much influence in the outside world, we must expect that we will be the target of criticism, and not all of it will seem reasonable, responsible, polite, or even sane to us. Nevertheless, it is important that we avoid giving even the appearance of suppressing or repressing criticism of us, or subjecting individuals or Web sites to "guilt by association" because their possibly valid criticisms are presented alongside less reasonable ones.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be too easily misunderstood. People add non-notable criticism of Admin X, with supporting links and reams of discussion, not because it is in any way significant, but because it's somehow about us. When a serious academic writes about Wikipedia, we should summarize what he says about us, warts and all. If a clutch of banned trolls says Wikipedia is run by a Jewish conspiracy, we should ignore it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

An attempt at a statement of why banning links to critic sites is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying we must avoid giving "even the appearance" is a bad idea. We shouldn't base our editorial decisions on what other people claim we're doing. Also, it's one thing for a site to just criticise Wikipedia in general. It's quite another to attack specific editors, and links are rarely removed in cases of the former. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's too strong a statement... certainly, when it comes to encyclopedic content, the perception regarding "censoring criticism" shouldn't be a factor in either direction. However, when it comes to dealing with commentary in project and talk pages, we should err on the side of not appearing to squelch critics. *Dan T.* 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment this is a meaningless statement. Of course we cannot suppress criticism of Wikipedia - if someone wants to create an attack site, or criticize us in a blog, or in a newspaper article, or on radio or TV, how could we possibly stop them? This vague and deceptively phrased sentence is a cover for two more pressing issues: first, should we actively respond to trolls (and yes, I mean trolls, not critics - the issue here is attack sites, not people who have reasonable criticisms of Wikipedia, which, by the way, would include most Wikipedians). I think the answer to this question should be no: don't feed the troll. Second, should we allow Wikipedia itself be used as a platform for publicizing attack sites? No, no, no, no, most definitely no. We have no obligation to, and it is counter productive in two ways - it will drive away good editors, and it will drive away readers who turn to Wikipedia for encyclopedia articles, not because they want to watch a bunch of middle-aged (or teenaged) geeks havint a public hissy fit. Bottom line: this is an encyclopedia. We are meant to provide the planet ith access to the sum of human knowledge. To think that someone's attack of wikipedia editors, or trollish attack sites that just spread gossip about Wikipedia, has any relevance to our goal is to degrade and betray the whole project. Our policies make this clear: we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be perfectly comfortable with criticism of Wikipedia. Informed and well-reasoned critique is not a problem. That does not mean we need to link to web forums full of disgruntled banned users attempting to out pseudonymous editors, pursuing grudges and generally shouting bloody blue murder because they were (usually for excellent reasons) given the bum's rush. User:JB196 posts to Wikipedia Review as Looch. His criticisms of Wikipedia have no evident authority, very little basis in fact, and are fundamentally based on the fact that he was such a monumental pain in the arse when his vanity spamming was rebuffed that one or two accounts out of over four hundred known and suspected sockpuppets are not, according to him, actually him. Sorry, but that is not a criticism of Wikipedia, it's a criticism of his obsessive vanity spamming and disruption, and we don't need his critique. We can get all the critique we need from places with an editorial policy and a fact-checking process; Britannica is a source of critique, and several respected newspapers also run pieces critiquing Wikipedia. Web forums and wikis are almost invariably rejected as sources for any article, due to fluidity of content, vulnerability to thread drift, lack of editorial policy and fact checking, and generally also because there is no validation that the editor is who they say they are.

Recently Rootology set up a site, WikiAbuse, with the intention of providing fact-checked, peer-reviewed critique. I supported this, it was a reasonable idea motivated by an apparently sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. It lasted about a month, I think. It was hijacked by the same grudge-bearers as populate the other attack sites, pushing the same malicious distortions and often outright lies. "Editor X is sexist because he argued against the inclusion of women in the list of major opera composers", for example; the list contains no women because there are no major women composers of opera (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Sites run or populated by banned grudge-bearers do not help us become a better encyclopaedia, they simply hamper any attempt to draw a line under past disputes by constantly re-presenting the "losing" side as if it were The Truth ™. This is the fundamental flaw with most attack sites, that is, those sites which carry significant volumes of personalised criticism of individual Wikipedians. Any attempt to engage in reasoned debate is very often derailed by the input of people who were booted from Wikipedia for excellent reasons, and who have it in for us as a result. People like Bagley. We've heard what he has to say, we've debated it, it's baseless - a tissue of lies from beginning to end - and one editor in particular finds any mention of it extremely hurtful. Why would we want to hear what Bagley has to say about Wikipedia? We know his view: his view is that he should be allowed to use Wikipedia to pursue his employer's Holy Crusade against naked short selling, and failure to support this Holy Crusade makes us part of the evil conspiracy to do down his fine company, whose poor share performance is entirely the result of cynical abuse by greedy conspirators, and nothing to do with their consistent failure to turn an operating profit.

Not linking to sites like Wikipedia Review in main space is not suppressing criticism, it's applying our sourcing guidelines. Discussing Wikipedia Review in project space is something that must be done with extreme caution; it's never going to be a reliable source (the main reason for discussing a link) and it is full of pretty vile diatribes by justly-banned users; we stop banned users from abusing their talk pages to attack those who banned them, and for the same reason we should be extremely wary of linking to any external platform where they do the same. Occasionally such links will be appropriate in the context of dispute resolution, so no absolute ban is practicable, but the judicious application of Clue, and not being a dick, argues very strongly indeed against linking to any site which ha substantial attack and outing content, because it is seen as a form of harassment by those attacked. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jonny Cache was User:Jon Awbrey, a different banned user from User:JB196. But nobody seems to think that getting facts straight is all that important when attacking "attack sites". *Dan T.* 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Mixing up my banned POV-pushers there :-) JB196 posts to WR as Looch. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support WP does not suppress even non-notable off wiki criticism, it simply does not link to it because it is non-notable - should it become notable then it may be linked to. Further, WP does not suppress non-notable criticism on off-wiki sites by banning links because it hosts non-notable criticism. WP does not suppress notable criticism either on or off-Wiki because it meets the criteria of WP:Notability. LessHeard vanU 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, on the ground that this arbCom case is not about attack sites against Wikipedia, but against non-notable individuals that happen to edit Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the premise of the proposal is that the removal of any link to a site which hosts (or has hosted) a personal attack effectively suppresses any legitimate criticism found there, and many sites which hosts (or has hosted) personal attacks will also host otherwise legitimate criticism. I should prefer Dan to comment or correct my understanding, though, before taking it as correct. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: yes, exactly. I have to say that I have a real problem with use of words like suppression and censorship and chill to describe good faith opposition to content which causes, in many case, grievous offence to its victims. Court reports do not include names of victims; strictly this could be described as censorship but in practical terms it's basic human decency. I really resent being accused of suppression or censorship because I don't think we need to link to antisocialmedia. It's no more censorship than any other editorial judgement not to include something. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP and Wikipedians

6) WP:BLP dictates that we must treat the subjects of our articles with compassion and understanding, taking special care to respect their privacy, even when, in some senses, they have become public figures. This policy applies equally to our editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Much as I do not think NPA applies to good faith edits, both in the article namespace and elsewhere, it is important not to let rejection of BADSITES into some perverse drive to link to any website in which our dirty laundry appears in the name of the greater good. Although links to or acknowledgments of sites that attack Wikipedians in vile ways may at times be necessary, they still require care and consideration of the ramifications they have on people's lives. Phil Sandifer 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Some people seem to think that because we rejected a policy stating that we may not link, then by inference we must (or even just should) link. Actually the presumption should be against linking, regardless of the status of BADSITES, for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to recognize this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and needs to be made explicit in BLP if it is not already (as noted by SlRubenstein).--Mantanmoreland 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed, although deliberate linking to harassment for no good reason is more a strawman argument given for keeping the policy than something that people actually do. -Amarkov moo! 03:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, it's also plainly covered by accepted policies against harassment and personal attacks, no matter what happens with this case. It's whether we should link to those sites for otherwise valid reasons (e.g. as sources for or examples of a valid article) that's in dispute. ShaleZero 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles referring to our editors have the same policies as our articles about anyone else. No more, no less. --Alecmconroy 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - but is this stated clearly enough in the policy itself? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The wording appears to refer to all editors, the vast majority of whom are not notable, in reference to a policy regarding a sub-grouping (living persons) of a sub-grouping (biographies) of an article classification system. The subjects of BLP policy are included in WP on an "involuntary" basis (where third parties reach consensus regards notability criteria) whereas editors are volunteers who are able to make themselves familiar with the environment. The various policies and guidelines of WP:Civil, WP:HARASS and NPA already provide the framework for the protection of contributors. LessHeard vanU 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support A responsible publisher takes responsibility for every word it publishes. Every single word. Blocking or banning contributors should come only after we have deleted their problematic contributions. If an edit is blameworthy, and we publish it, we share in that blame.Proabivouac 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editing

7) Wikipedia editors have a right to edit without revealing their real life identities if they choose. Attempts by other editors to post information that violates this right is to be discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd go further and say if someone hasn't identified themselves, it is inappropriate to speculate on their identity. We should presume people want their privacy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 04:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia editors have a right to edit pseudonymously or using an IP address, but not anonymously. Risker 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted.--MONGO 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. The title of this still says "anonymous" and there is no such right granted in the Meta privacy policy. Risker 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. I do not wish to reveal my real life identity on Wikipedia and I don't have to. If someone who knew me in real life would create an account here and say "MELSARAN IS ACTUALLY JOHN DOE AND LIVES ON BROAD STREET 121!!!", then I think he would be blocked. The fact that it is not explicitly stated in the privacy policy doesn't mean that this is isn't a right. As a sidenote, the arbcom previously passed a similar principle[2]. Melsaran (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support Risker's point is mistaken semantics - the word "anonymous" is in effect a pseudonym, and the difference is inconsequential. We need to be able to identify Wikipedian editors when it comes to blocks, bans, and sock-puppets and we have a range of ways of doing this. But beyond this I think anonymity is a plus. Wikipedia is premised on the idea that all people have something to contribute, and one's identity (let alone credentials) is never the basis for judging a good or bad edit; it is the edit itself. I wouldn't care if Daniel Brandt or Judd Baggley were editing articles as long as they complied fully with all of our policies. And the problem is, they (or at least baggly, to my knoweldge have actually violated our policies. But that is the issue: compliance with or violation of our policies, not the identity per se. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important principle. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, with the caveat that WP has no responsibility for information that has or had been made available by the individual previously and/or elsewhere other than to discourage its disclosure through the offices of WP. LessHeard vanU 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The "anonymity" fetish has proven troublesome. Yes, people have the right to edit without calling attention to their real-world identity, but that doesn't necessarily imply a right to force the rest of Wikipedia to assist them in trying to cram toothpaste back in a tube, or slam shut the barn door after the horse left, in cases where their secret identity gets out despite their best efforts to preserve it. Those exposing such identities aren't necessarily doing it to harrass or stalk somebody; sometimes the use of hidden identities hides conflicts of interest and other abuses that need to be exposed for accountability sake. In the "real world", people mostly take public actions under their real names, and even when they don't (as with actors with stage names, or writers with pen names), there is not the religious-level fervor about preserving this secret and suppressing anybody and anything that gets in the way of this. See James Tiptree, Jr for an instructive case; this was a woman writing science fiction under a male pseudonym, and she managed to preserve this secret for ten years; then she was outed by inquisitive fans, and the SF community didn't go around screaming "Outing!" "Attack site!" "Evil!" and trying to suppress this information after it was already public; it's now in the Wikipedia article on her. *Dan T.* 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia as a community needs to lend a helping hand in obvious cases of harassment against members, in particular when these attacks are related to the fulfilling of Wikipedia's practices. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as weak and poorly worded. Editors certainly have a right to edit pseudonymously and discouraged is far too milquetoast a term. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen the anonymity / pseudonymity thing as a right to not reveal any personal information about yourself if you don't choose to do so, rather than an obligation on the part of anybody else to maintain or retain your secrecy if you slip up and let some revealing info be known. Some of these pseudonymous editors seem to fancy themselves as some sort of superhero with a secret identity, and just like the world must not know that [spoiler warning!] Superman is Clark Kent, their identities need to be concealed, and everybody needs to actively participate in preserving this concealment, and even "unrevealing" it if it slips out. However, that's just not how things work, even in the comic book universe... Daily Planet editor Perry White is a good friend of Superman, but I bet he'd put "Superman is Clark Kent" in huge type on the front page of his paper if he found out that info, since journalism (and selling papers) would outrank protecting a friend's secrets. *Dan T.* 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mu. Sorry folks, I hate to play the heavy. But this idea falls into the territory of the old saying of "Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash". I'm not an opponent of anonymity/pseudonymity in the abstract. But people's Wikipedia activities are not going to have the social status of confidential informants or trade secrets. There's simply too much potential for mischief for editors with a grudge, or an ax to grind, to try to hide behind pseudonymity. Almost nobody who is subjected to hostile action is going to care about a prohibition on Revealing True Names. You can't enforce it! The only thing that will happen is for Wikipedia to look like a living Kafka story. That is, it's already happened with "THF"/MichaelMoore.com - someone with a very obvious, well, let's say "point of view", used Wikipedia in an arguably political-agenda-pushing way, and when this was protested by the target (granted, not politely), there was an uproar over, drumroll, saying exactly who was doing it. That just invites that sort of policy-gaming - attack someone, get them to react, and then attack them for reacting. Yes, I know there's all sorts of issues, but in the real world, abuses are just too tempting. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am amused at how many people continue to misrepresent the whole THF/Michael Moore controversy. Suffice to say that most of the above comment is an urban legend - enough people have now repeated that fictional version that it's now passed around as fact. ATren 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note careful phrasing in the above. I'm trying not to rehash every detail of the specific incident, but I think the broad outline is sound -- Seth Finkelstein 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% I don't want to reveal my identity to the public--Phoenix 15 12:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiding and abetting

8) Wikipedia editors should not aid and abet the revelation of real life identities of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: What would be some concrete examples of "aiding and abetting" in this context? Paul August ☎ 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. A sound idea.--Mantanmoreland 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably needs some rewording to avoid abuse by Wikilawyers, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - in effect is a personal attack (equivalent to my going up to someone in the street and stripping them of their clothes against their will - an assault and violation), and defeats the point of NPOV which is to promote a community of diverse even opposing editors who can work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment per my caveat in 7 above, I cannot support such a broad principle. This does not specify those contributors who have by comment or action expressed a desire to edit anonymously, but all editors. Should we not be allowed to link to sites who give personal details such as regarding a certain Jimmy Wales? Please clarify statement per Amarkov's comments. LessHeard vanU 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What about when the hidden identity is hiding conflicts of interest or other misbehavior? *Dan T.* 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to Dan's point, what if the username is a sock of a banned or otherwise sanctioned editor? Under this ruling the editor could not be disclosed as a sock without their real life identity being known if this information is disclosed with their other identity. LessHeard vanU 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is one of the core issues here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support at least until Wikipedia itself is not a platform for malicious attacks on our own volunteer contributors.Proabivouac 08:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? OPPOSE. This is an underhanded way for MONGO to beat me with a stick. I am an admin on ED. I've never edited ED articles about WP editors. I know how to separate these distinct online identities. MONGO wanted several people banned/driven away from WP because they refused to edit the ED article about him in his original ArbCom case using the synonym "nonfeasance" for aiding and abetting and this principle was rejected as guilt by association. Every few months MONGO comes to my user page[3] and accuses me of aiding and abetting the abuse and harassment of him because I refuse to go to ED and delete the article about him. If this is passed as a principle, MONGO and his cronies will come to my userpage and tell me I have to perform some action on some other site to remain on Wikipedia. That's 100% BS. SchmuckyTheCat

Assume Good Faith

9) Editors who remove links to websites on Wikipedia that have personally identifying information about any Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous, should be considered to be acting in good faith.

9.1) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not when those links reside in article namespace and are relevant to the subject. It's a bit egocentric to leave links to hate-promoting sites or neonazi sites (see e.g. Stormfront (website)) in place, and to remove links to websites that happen to target Wikipedia editors (in article namespace, when they are relevant to the subject). Melsaran (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is fine as a general rule-- by default everybody should be considered to be acting in good faith. But I think this principle would be intepreted as "people who remove links MUST be considered to be acting in good faith, no matter what." That's a big step from just WP:AGF. To see why this sentence is much more than just AGF, consider the converse: "Editors who ADD such links should be considered to be acting in good faith.". That's clearly not true. There can be good faith reasons and bad faith reasons to add OR remove a link-- context is critical. You can't just specify an action and say it should always be consided good faith or bad faith. --Alecmconroy 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that last sentence. Proposed 9.1 (adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Assume good faith). Melsaran (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Melsaran is wrong to make "relevance" the only criteria for inclusion - it must be relevance and notability, and it is on notability that most of the attack sites in question fall far short of the mark. B the way, I do agree that our criteria should apply to all hate sites: mention them only if the are relevant and notable. Wikipedia should not go out of its way to publicize fringe views. If a fringe-view is innoccuous, we can mention it in passing - but if it is both fringe and hateful, it just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is a bad policy for a whole range of counter-arguments to this. Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What a silly essay! :-) Oh, and thanks for linking to it so I don't have to do it myself and get accused of "spamming"!  :-O *Dan T.* 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose This allows the removal of what appears cited or referenced text without debate, without peer review, and assumes massive bad faith on the part of the editor placing the link. This is against the principle of WP:Consensus. The case for removing links needs to be made on each occasion.LessHeard vanU 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a double-edged sword, since good faith also should be assumed of those who add the controversial links. *Dan T.* 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant. Good faith has not been called into question. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant per Guy. We're not talking about whether it's done in good faith, we're talking about whether it should be done. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative sources

10) If a website routinely engages in presenting information revealing the real life identities of our contributors, alternative sources should be used as much as possible to satisfy requirements for reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support.--Mantanmoreland 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, inasmuch as any source that would be considered objectionable by a reasonable person (Hate sites, explicit pornography, etc.) should be avoided when not directly relevant to the material in question. ShaleZero 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as above; we don't censor relevant encyclopaedic content because it happens to target our contributors. There are many sites out there that are offensive to non-Wikipedians and we link to them. See also User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy. Melsaran (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, where the same content can be gained from a source that is more objective then of course we should use that other source. And actually we have probably lost sight of something here: in trying to cite antisocialmedia, for example, we would be citing a primary source, when actually we should probably look for a secondary source instead. ASM is not a reliable source for anything, and in documenting the controversy we should be looking to what outside commentators say. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree on principle. We should use the BEST sources-- the most reliable, the most notable, to create the best article possible. In practice, I doubt we're going to find any cases where an outing site really is the best source-- but it's important that we choose our sources based on the "Best Source" standard, not the "Least Objectionable" standard. --Alecmconroy 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see any example where an attack site is a better source for anything than a non-attack site. Engaging in attacks is usually a sign of a profound lack of objectivity. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What site would have been better to link to on the Michael Moore article than www.michaelmoore.com? Which would have been better than www.antisocialmedia.net/ in the dispute about that page? If an 'attack site', however we choose to define that loaded term, is notable and relevant then we should link to it. Period. Doesn't matter how 'bad' they have or have not been... we're an encyclopedia, not the morality police. Do the two sites above have "a profound lack of objectivity"? Absolutely... which, ironically, is a large part of what makes them notable. --CBD 08:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack site. The editor who, in good faith, removed it, was rapidly corrected. It's not objective, either, so it's probably not a particularly good source for anything other than what Michael Moore says about anything. I think WP:RS discusses the use of openly polemical sources. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapidly corrected? I seem to recall BADSITES advocates agreeing with the claim that it was an attack site... four different users removing the link... edit warring for several days... insistence that 3RR did not apply to the dozen or so removals from that page... et cetera. This was not a brief 'rapidly corrected' mistaken application of the principle by one misguided user... several of the same people who have pushed this concept since the beginning were right there with him. They backed down only after blocks were starting to be handed down for the unwarranted disruption and the sole 'attack' which supposedly required complete censoring of the site had been removed. Nor have I seen any of them acknowledge that this was an error or say that they wouldn't do it just the same again. --CBD 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Alecmconroy. Other material hosted by a site should have no bearing on the suitability of the source for the purpose of the article. This might also set a dangerous precedent of tainting sources by association in regard to other areas of contention (nationalism, religion, politics etc.) if adopted. LessHeard vanU 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. We shouldn't have anything resembling a "blacklist" of sources based on whether some of us dislike what they do. *Dan T.* 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Durova^Charge! 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks defined

11) A personal attack is a deliberately written pejorative comment made by one editor about another editor that may include the use of links to material hosted on Wikipedia or other websites. Links to the identical material in other contexts are not inherently personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this muddies more than it clarifies. Phil Sandifer 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Intended to clarify that it isn't a personal attack if it isn't personal. Can assist in addressing situations such as the mass deletion of links to Making Light, or the rampages throughout Wikipedia to delete all links to a site because of one perceived personal attack on that site. Risker 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I originally commented only that it is poorly phrased. It is now clear to me that it is so poorly phrased it can only invite abuses. Obviously, this is what a personal attack is. But it is not the only form of personal attack, i.e. it is an incomplete description of a personal attack. Any American who was ever between 8 and 18 years old knows very well that the most affective personal attack is "Mark told me you have a tiny dick" or "Joe said you are a slut and went down on ten guys last year." (This is such common knowledge in the US that if anyone disputes this i have to believe they are acting in bad faith. In the meantime I suggest they rent the movie Mean Girls. And yet some people here at Wikipedia seem to think that if you use this phrasing here (X claims that Y ...) they are not engaging in a personal attack. This is disingenuous if not simply bad faith. It is also a perversion of NPOV. Most editors and the personal details about editors do not come close to the standards of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and even when they do we need to be very careful about how they are treated in Wikipedia articles - if they are notable enough to be mentioned in an article, then BLP applies. In any event, obviously any edit including to the content of an article that amounts to "Well that's what I heard" or "Well that's what he said" is obviously - OBVIOUSLY - a personal attack. Any kid at a Junior High playground knows this ... people writing an encyclopedia should at least be as knowledgable as the average 12 year old. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically support, but agree that the wording is clumsy, and other proposals on this page make the necessary points better. *Dan T.* 16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. This would be carte blanche for anybody to evade WP:NPA by simply writing the attack offsite and linking it. I don't know what the intention was of this principle, but as written I'd say it's a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Extremely gameable. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as worded. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. unhelpful, per baove comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic Integrity

12) Wikipedia should report matters regarding itself or its editors with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from the Associated Press's "Statement of Ethical Principles". See talk. --Alecmconroy 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I changed from "comment" to "oppose" because this opens the door to expecting Wikipedia to be like a newspaper, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Hee is my original comment: I think that the AP's ethical principals are a valuable resource as we consider our own ethics. I add however that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and WP:NOT makes this an explicit principal. What we consider balanced and unbiased may be different from what journalists consider balanced and unbiased. And as an encyclopedia we may confront ethical issues journalists do not. So I have no problem with this as long as it does not in any way violate or do an end-run around WP:NOT. Our job is to help give everyone access to make the sum of human knowledge, and this entails a standard of notability that is much higher than newspapers (which report on news that people may forget within days) and this may require different ethical principles. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this particular line in the AP is good, but other parts are less applicable. See my verbose response in talk momentarily. --Alecmconroy 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, peeps. Ignore that the principle originated in the world of print journalism and just consider the actual content: Should articles on Wikipedia or its editors be treated the same way we treat articles on other subjects? The fact that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is irrelevant-- the principle is still a good one. --Alecmconroy 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, to make it less vague and newspapery, we could change the wording to something like "Wikipedia should cover matters regarding itself or its editors according to the same standards it would apply to other institutions or individuals." --Alecmconroy

Support. *Dan T.* 12:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It's not really "turning Wikipedia into a newspaper", since all this particular provision says is that, to the extent that covering things involving ourselves becomes part of our mission, it needs to be done in a fair, impartial manner. This is true of encyclopedic coverage as much as it is true of journalistic coverage. *Dan T.* 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it is either redundant with NPOV and unnecessary, or some kind of strange way to supplant NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a necessary corrollary of NPOV, but many editors do not. They think sites that attack Wikipedians should be treated differently than sites that attack people who aren't wikipedians. Spelling out that we treat everything equally would be advantageous. --Alecmconroy 07:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is begging the question. A journalist applies critical judgement when assessing the quality of his sources; so do we. On the other hand, a journalist may be engaging in campaigning, which we must not do. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. So although we should aspire to the sorts of codes of ethics common in the more serious journals, we are in the end an encyclopaedia and not "reporters". If a criticism of Wikipedia is significant, there will be reliable secondary sources that say it is significant, and how it is significant, and give context. The ruling policies here are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Requiring "vigor" and "candor" in pursuing allegations against our editors has little to do with that, although obviously we require intellectual honesty in respect of significant critique from respectable individuals. There's no evident link between that and attack sites, though, since responsible and respectable individuals do not engage in attacks and harassment. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of circular logic to that, where if you don't want to deal with some criticism site, you just have to declare it to be an "attack site" (people will have to take your word for it since you'll suppress all links and references whereby anybody else could see for themselves) and then it would follow from there that it's not "responsible" or "respectable". Then you can close the loop by saying that because these people are not "responsible" or "respectable", they must be presumed to have a motive of attack and harrassment for anything they do (Assume Bad Faith). When you look at things that way, you'll find plenty of evidence to justify a continued ban on anything to do with these people. "It's an attack site." "Why?" "Because it's full of banned users who are irresponsible and unrespectable." "Why are they irresponsible and unrespectable?" "Because they participate in an attack site." "But why is it an attack site?" "Because it has people like that in it." "I went there and didn't see any attacks, just criticisms." "You didn't look in the right place in that site." "Where is the right place?" "I can't tell you... I'm not allowed to link to it. You'll just have to trust me." "Why should I trust you?" "Because you have to Assume Good Faith." "But isn't that Assuming Bad Faith of the people in the other sites?" "What are you, a stinking evil troll?" *Dan T.* 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we have mechanisms for dealing with credible allegations of abuse against Wikipedia editors and administrators. That is not the same as saying that sites which harass and out editors may or may not be linked. This principle as written begs the question of how credible these sites are. I have yet to see an attack site - that is, a site which engages in significant harassment and outing - which is a reliable or credible source of information. Not even the site you post to. Every one I've seen is populated by people whose first loyalty is to themselves or their agenda, who have been rebuffed from Wikipedia due to tensions between that and our fundamental policies. Sure, even a stopped cloak is right twice a day, but that doesn't make the attack sites we've discussed here anything other than manifestly unreliable and distinctly dangerous. In article space we link to reliable sources. In meta debate we link to credible critique. We'd need a really good reason to link a harassment site. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's not so much Wikipedia as a site as its volunteers that are at issue here. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Re "same vigor and candor", actually, encyclopedia articles should not represent the cutting edge of "oppositional" investigative journalism, but should reflect what is broadly agreed and understood by the most serious and responsible sources.Proabivouac 08:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

12.1) Wikipedia should report matters regarding itself or its editors with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to strike "vigor" as pushing investigative journalism. Candor is a real issue ehre and needs to be addressed. Mangoe 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

12.2) Wikipedia articles should cover matters regarding itself or its editors in the same way that it would cover other institutions or individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is really the heart of it, and it's a lot more "self-evident" as an obvious part of NPOV. Assuming NPOV-as-we-know-it still exists at the end of this arbitration, we should look into making this principle explicit in WP:NPOV. --Alecmconroy 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability cannot be prejudged

13) In keeping with the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the working definition of notability, the site's policies cannot presume in advance what subjects will or will not become notable in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Superfluous and also wrong. We're going to start running articles on future notables?--Mantanmoreland 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ShaleZero 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Melsaran (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to arguments that we can categorically ban links to "attack sites"; that implies (and sometimes outright claims) that no site falling into that category will ever be notable enough to deserve an article. Viz. [[4]] ShaleZero 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant. This is not about links that people assert might one day in the future be relevant, it's about the here-and-now. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Irrelevant. Anyone can edit a wikipedia article at any time so wikipedia articles are always works in progress so they are never finished. that means that all we care about is what is notable at the moment. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support The potential of a site in helping build the encyclopedia should not be constrained by the banning of linking generally following the hosting of attack material. LessHeard vanU 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably mostly irrelevant, but I support it to the extent that it's on-topic for this issue. People shouldn't, for instance, regard the prior decision regarding linking to ED as precluding a link to it on an article about it should that site later be judged notable in an overturning of the earlier decisions that it was not. *Dan T.* 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose/Not relevant. If an attack site somehow becomes notable, of course we'll have articles on it, but we can't make policies based on dreaming, and that's not the point here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But is really an "of course" that a notable site will be covered, even if it attacks us? I think the whole point of BADSITES/NPA is that notability is irrelevant if a site attacks us. --Alecmconroy 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on Wikipedia Watch, including its hivemind page. That's an attack site. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

14) Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content and do not violate any of our existing policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In essence-- "If content makes for a better encyclopedia article, it can be included." The opposite of this is Proposed Principle #4, which I paraphrase as "Objectionable content will be scrubbed unless deleting it would absolutely violate NPOV." --Alecmconroy 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This refers to the inclusion of images and text that people find objectionable for religious or other reasons, such as the Mohammed cartoons or explicit images in sexual topics. It absolutely does not give us an excuse to link to external harassment or even external POV forks. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The caveat at the end of it stops that being an issue. Viridae^Talk 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "do not violate any of our existing policies" is an extremely important clause-- relevancy is just the first of many many criteria content must meet in order to be included. --Alecmconroy

No, the caveat has no relevance. Censorship is about content which offends deeply held moral or religious beliefs, or "for the protection of minors". I do not believe, and I would like to see any evidence to the contrary, that this was ever included as a prohibition against removing links to hate speech, especially hate speech against our editors for - in the main - enforcing policy. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think our Muslim editors would, justly, be outraged by a Wikipedia that could include notable attacks against Muhammad, but which purged notable attacks against Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about "criticisms of Wikipedia" we are talking about sites that make personal attacks against Wikipedian editors. And I certainly do not know of any criticism of a Wikipedian editor what is even a couple of orders of magnitiude of notability close to the notable criticisms of Mohammed. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What Slrubenstein said. This is not about purging criticisms of Wikipedia it's about hate speech. The analogy would be closer to how a Muslim editor would react to our linking the Stormfront website's opinion on an Islamic issue - and in that case they would be justly outraged. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment A total red-herring. Wikipedia is not censored except to comply with our policies? So what exactly do we mean by censored? Irrelevant, since what is at issue here is what are our policies, what is the best way to apply them. Introducing the word "censorship" is just inflammatory rhetoric that would distract people from the real task at hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if NPA applies to good-faith article content, then this principle may be ared herring-- because ALL objectionable content will violate polcies. If ,however, NPA doesn't appply to good faith article content, then this is a very important principle, because it says "Just because it upsets you, that's not a valid reason to remove it." --Alecmconroy 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is the principle behind the pillar that is "Neutral point of view". LessHeard vanU 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Some take their crusade against "attack sites" almost to the point of it being a religion to them, so it ends up falling in the same category as things that are blasphemy to other religions. *Dan T.* 15:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Qualified support: this principle may swing its fists so long as it doesn't land a blow on WP:V and WP:BLP. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a worrying extension of WP:NOT Censored. That's designed to describe the inclusion of explicit content (and things like the Mohammed cartoons). Using it as an umbrella to link to hate speech - against anyone - is an extraordinarily bad idea. I have had some extreme bigots in the past complain that we are "censoring" Wikipedia by removing bigotry, citing this policy. I would hate for there to be an apparent ArbCom endorsement for not censored meaning permission to link to attacs; I don't think that's what the policy is for. This view was supported in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question; even the most irrational people here claim that some policy supports their actions. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

15) Wikipedia is not a newspaper: News reports, and tabloid newspaper articles Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although true, Wikipedia does have a long tradition of covering current events and more minor subjects, and I worry that this states the case more strongly than current community practice supports. Phil Sandifer 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an essential point.--Mantanmoreland 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

True, and important to note in this context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge this and do not think that the principle - which really is just taken from our WP:NOT policy - means that we can't go on reporting on current events on the front page. I welcome friendlky amendments. The point is two-fold: first, mere mention in a newspaper odes not satisfy the standard of notability required for inclusion in an article, and second, the standards for inclusion in an encyclopedia article are higher than for inclusion in a newspaper. This princple is meant to address contents of encyclopedia articles and not the main page's coverage of current events. Slrubenstein | Talk

I meant my remark to support the principle Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sorry if that's unclear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I also have to plead guilty to being hazy. The "essential point" to which I referred was the one made by Slrubenstein. This is highly relevant to the matter at hand. As an encyclopedia, it is incumbent to take the long view and take care against giving excess weight to tabloidesque subject matter.--Mantanmoreland 02:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: The standard of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia is higher than the standard for inclusion in a newspaper. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Non-notable is a fine reason to exclude info, andmere newspaper-level-notability is never an automatic proof of encyclopedic-level-notatblity. Similarly, all articles must take ito account BLP considerations, regardless of whehterh the living person is a Wikipedia editor or not. --Alecmconroy 12:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. We often forget this aspect in these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection... irrelevant. This goes afield from the issue of site links and gets into the issues of inclusionism vs. deletionism, and notability, which are issues with a whole new set of conflicts and minefields. We should tackle one hot-button issue at a time. *Dan T.* 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant for any situation where an editor has argued for inclusion of a link to a website solely because it was mentioned in a newspaper article, as if that were sufficient notability - and our own policy makes it clear that it is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is important. Newspapers are there to sell newspapers, which means that sensationalism is actually at a premium, even in the more respectable papers. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an aggregation of news reports; our aim should be to distill and reflect what reputable independent sources say about a thing, not to join in the debate ourselves. The "he said / she said" that we sometimes get in articles on controversial individuals just makes for a battleground to make your side's section the largest, or get in the last word. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also have the No Original Research provision, which gets in the way of trying to "distill" and "reflect" it ourselves. *Dan T.* 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Distilling the essence of what reliable secondary sources say is the whole point of Wikipedia. It's why we call ourselves editors, not writers. In fact, it's exactly what WP:NOR does say. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I Agree with Guy and Slrubenstein's point above. Eusebeus 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

An important reason for NPOV is to create an open, collaborative community

16) The most important lesson of NPOV, "more important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal." See also "The primary reason for NPOV

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question for Slrubenstein: As regards to article content, are you asserting that we should treat "attacks" on Wikipedia editors differently than attacks on non-editors? Paul August ☎ 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I think NPOV means we should treat editors differently from non editors? Yes. That is how I read NPOV, which explains itself as a framework to enable very different people with different views to collaborate. We already do this in other ways, for example, we expect editors to write in a non-biased, neutral way - but we do not expect authors of the sources we draw on in articles to write in a non-biased, neutral way ... so yes, we have different standards for people who do participate in writing the encyclopedia and people who do not. As for personal attacks - i explicitly did not include this in my formulation, not because it is covered elsewhere in this workshop, but because I intended to make a prescriptive rather than proscriptive point. I do not think that Wikipedia editors should make personal attacks against anyone, editor or non-editor. In fact, you may conclude the NPOV is entirely irrelevant to this case, and any point anyone makes about NPOV is moot. But some people, esp. Phil Sandifer in his statement and people who reject this point, are claiming NPOV applies. Well, if NPOV applies, let's make sure we consider the policy in its fullness. The policy itself states that the reason is to promote collaboration among editors. I am arguing that this needs to be taken into account IF ArbCom chooses to apply NPOV to this case. Below, Alcmconroy states that the goal of Wikipedia is to produce a verifiable NPOV encyclopedia and anything else is a means to that goal (making NPOV the end); Dtobias says the "community" is subsidiary. They are wrong. In a statement published by CNN as part of its "Principal Voices" series (I see it published in Time Magazine Sept 17), Jimmy Wales states:

My passion is captured best in the vision statement that guides my work: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge." .... And by "the sum of all knowledge" I mean everything that communities can gather and share .... We are living in a unique era. People talk about peer-to-peer, but it is my belief that few have truly grasped what that means, and where we are all going. We need to learn that peer-to-peer works through respect of each other - as peers

In other words, the "end" of Wikipedia is not a neutral verifiable encyclopedia, it is a global community in which everyone has access to the sum of all human knowledge. Neutrality and verifiability are means to this end. NPA is a means to this end too, and an essential one because personal attacks make peer-to-peer respect and the goal of universal access impossible, and the goal of a communities sharing is impossible. NPA is proscriptive. NPOV is prescriptive. And our NPOV policy is both a means and an end, it is not solely an end, it is also a means to create and maintain this community and peer-to-peer respect. Now, ArbCom can apply this as they choose. I am merely pointing out that this is an important component of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is ludicrous. Phil Sandifer 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, monsieur. This is a significant point. There is an underlying assumption that NPA conflicts with NPOV. It's as if we must self-flagellate in order to build this project. But this is an encyclopedia, not the Great Pyramid of Cheops. A neutral tone is achieved by maintaining harmony and a collaborative effort between editors.--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

...and the way to do that is to gang up on, ban, censor, and drive away anybody with conflicting opinions, after which everybody left will all have harmony (and if you don't link to the other sites that harbor people you're not harmonious with, you can just pretend they don't exist). *Dan T.* 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i hardly see how attacking an editor constitutes a "notable view" on an "encyclopedic topic." But maybe now you no longer believe in NPOV? We can't just pick and choose which parts of the policy we will accept, you know. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed: The spirit of NPOV is not in conflict with NPA; the two policies are equally important in creating an environment in which editors can freely contribute without fear of persecution. To use Wikipedia as a platform for publicising attakcs against editors and attack sites violates the spirit and point of NPOV as well as NPA. For NPOV to justify including reference to an attack site, that site must meet a very high standard of notability. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Per my comment at 14 NPOV is one of five pillars, whereas NPA is a policy. NPOV may allow the limits of NPA to be tested in order to build the encyclopedia, but NPA must not constrain NPOV. LessHeard vanU 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent my point. Nowhere do I say NPA constrains NPOV. I am saying NPOV constrains you and in ways you refuse to acknowledge. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I misrepresent your point, but I do take issue with your statements that NPOV are NPA both are "equal" (per my earlier comments regarding pillar vs. policy) and "not in conflict" as far as the application of NPA to potential sources in light of "attack sites". If certain sites are to be debarred as sources then the principle of Wp:npov#Balance is at risk. I acknowledge that NPOV constrains me, but I desire that the constraint is applied equally (and never not at all).LessHeard vanU 11:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I can clarify: NPOV is prescriptive. It exists in order to foster an open community of people who bring with them divergent and even conflicting views. Promoting NPOV means promoting this open community. I think that treating an attack on a wikipedia editor by an outside party as notable solely because it is an attack on a Wikipedia editor actually constrains NPOV. It is a back-handed way to put pressure on editors whose views you (I mean the generic you) don't like. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment, but would argue that the example would fail simply on notability and relevance grounds; the editor is not notable as an editor on WP, therefore no reason for the link, and if otherwise notable and a WP editor then the attack is irrelevant to notability, therefore no reason for the link. Where NPA might constrain NPOV is if a host site containing a viewpoint is deemed unlinkable because some of the material contained is adjudged attack content. A valid viewpoint lost for some other content. LessHeard vanU 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The community is subsidiary to the encyclopedia, and NPOV includes being neutral when it comes to criticisms of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. *Dan T.* 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies to notable encyclopedic topics. Please tell me where in the NPOV policy it states that atttacking an editor is a notable view on an encyclopedic topic? Slrubenstein | Talk

If attacks on non-editors can be notable (and they can be; see any number of articles on political conflict or the like, as well as articles on hate groups, for examples), NPOV requires that we don't give special consideration to attacks on editors. ShaleZero 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies to all encyclopedic topics. If the only reliable source on a subject determines that it (the subject) is a "complete waste of fucking time" then that is the neutral point of view. Likewise, if Osama bin Laden were to openly edit WP then comment on that editor, no matter how else it violates NPA, CIVIL, etc, is likely to be considered NPOV within the context of the available references. LessHeard vanU 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lunacy. A Verifiable NPOV encyclopedia is the goal. Everything else is just a means to an end. --Alecmconroy 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. The purpose of NPOV is to create a good encyclopedia. The community is important, yes, but the purpose of the policy is not fostering community. -Amarkov moo! 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe this, then go work for any conventional encyclopedia such as Encarta or Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia is premised on the idea that a wiki-community can produce a superior encyclopedia. The value of the wiki-community is essentially bound up with our vision of what would be a superior encyclopedia. My critics act as if there is a necessary conflict or opposition between the two. That is how the editors of EB think, which is why they require editors to have credentials and have an editorial board to review all articles. It is a view that is anathema to Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sl, I just want you to know that your above answer (and your answer to Paul August) was very eloquent and beautiful, and I think it has done more to help me understand your (and others) POV than any other words I've heard in this debate, and though it doesn't convince me, it is beautiful. A very good post.

I have a different point of view-- for me, Wikipedia is primarily "an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy", nor an attempt at an online utopia. Human beings attack each other. The KKK attacks blacks, the Anti-Semites attacks Jews, the Democrats attack the Republicans, and as Wikipedia becomes world-famous, our critics attack us. When the humans out there engage in "noteworthy and encyclopedic" personal attacks on each other, it's our job to cover it-- ugly though it is, divisive though it may be.

Were but that there was none of it to cover. I just hope that the damage that truly following NPOV does to the wiki-community will be offset by the good that a truly NPOV encyclopedia does to the GLOBAL community. --Alecmconroy 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I am glad that open dialogue can help us express ourselves more clearly and better understand one another - I think this is one of the things I mean when I place such a high value on community. Now, just to be clear: I agree with you that the world is not perfect and that we need to cover upsetting topics when they are encyclopedic (Nazis, KKK, political and ethical hot potatoes like abortion) and provide full coverage of notable views. So far, in other parts of this workship, I have emphasized notability and I believe that attacks on Wikipedia editors are simply not notable, and I would not put the attack sites themselves in the same category of notability as the examples you provide. But here I am making a different point: procedurally - in order to write NPOV articles on these topics, we need a diverse group of collaborators working together. I just do not think NPOV is possible as an end without this, and I think NPOV policy itself acknowledges that NPOV is also a means to get people to work together. Is this naive utopianism? No. We have all dealt with trolls and POV pushers and there are a variety of ways to get rid of them through blocking and bans, by the community or ArbCom. If an editor's attack is so truly noteworthy that it deserves encyclopedic coverage, I would propose to you that that editor would already have been banned. I think you are mixing up two important principles. When there is a conflict among editors, ArbCom has to treat them fairly and with due process - this is not NPOV (which is about article contents), it is about dispute resolution (which is about relations among editors). ArbCom has to take into account all sides of a conflict. But when a Wikipedia article is used to encourage people who are making personal attacks against editors, or to publicise personal attacks against editors, that is not NPOV - that is some editor hijacking an article page in order to attack another editor and perhaps use NPOV as camouflage - which I think is a perversion of NPOV. The result will not be a high-quality encyclopedia. The result will be to drive away some of our best editors, and to turn off potential new editors whom we need for this project to work. There are people I personally consider racists here editing articles. As long as they comply with our policies, I cannot touch them - and the result is a diverse group of editors with diverse bodies of knowledge contributing to make a better encyclopedia. If I can use articles to attack that person - or if he can use articles to attack me - and one or both of us leaves the project, the result will be a loss to the encyclopedia. This is what I think is at stake in the NPOV policy: a diverse and inclusive community will produce a better encyclopedia, and we need policies to enable that community to function and even more, to foster that community among editors. It may not happen in the outside world! But we try to make it happen here as the way to produce a great encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying my position here: The community is very important. We need to support an open, collaborative community a lot more than we are right now. It's just that this particular policy of NPOV exists (in my opinion) only to create a good encyclopedia. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The most important reason for NPOV is to keep Wikipedia as a source of information, where people can go to read a balanced description of topics which at times can be very controversial. The NPOV policy prevents Wikipedia from operating as an advocacy site. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And for NPOV to work we need a diverse community. NPOV is a means of creating that community.Without it, we will never have an NPOV encyclopedia. You know, all I was doing was quoting from the policy itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom does not make policy

17) Policy on Wikipedia is made by consensus. The ArbCom exists to resolve disputes about the application of policy in particular cases, but does not make policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The truth of this statement has shifted several times since the creation of the arbcom, but it has never been wholly true or wholly false. Phil Sandifer 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It seems useful to state this given that people have often cited the earlier ArbCom decision as somehow imposing a link-ban policy, when this is outside the proper power of the ArbCom to impose. *Dan T.* 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. This is a frequent misconception. The ArbCom may clarify policy, yes, and they do not always have to take policy into account in an arbitration ruling, but they may not unilaterally create new policy without consensus. Melsaran (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur per Dan. LessHeard vanU 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Very strongly support - it really does make me cringe when I see someone referencing the arbcom decision when removing "bad" links (this is in general - not specific to this case). The committee needs to make sure that the community knows where it stands. Martinp23 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Question to Phil: how do you reconcile this with your position at proposal 18? Durova^Charge! 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone ever say they did? This is about clarifying how policy should be determined in a good-faith dispute between editors in good standing. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom indeed does not make policy. While wikipedia is not a democracty neither is it a dictatorship and only in dictatorships are the policy makers and the judges the same people, SqueakBox 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not by definition if they propose a policy then it generally is adopted but if they introduced some stupid policy banning everyone for not having I LOVE ARBCOM on their userpage then of course it won't be adopted--Phoenix 15 13:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Burden of proof

18) In article space, the onus is on those seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Bold, revert, discuss is the accepted model.

18.1) Within an article, the onus is on those seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Bold, revert, discuss is the accepted model.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: Since either the presence or the absence of content can be POV, why should we favor one over the other? Paul August ☎ 06:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the default in the case of disputed content, especially where living individuals are concerned (which generally applies to attack sites, whether they attack editors or others), is to remove it pending consensus to include. Bold, revert, discuss. Where absence of a fact impacts on neutrality, consensus will rapidly form to that effect, but we do not include defamatory material in articles while we talk among ourselves, I think that's pretty much a given. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No. Exactly backwards. The burden of proof is on removal, not inclusion. Reversion is not a standard tactic and is discouraged. Phil Sandifer 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil, you are wrong. See WP:BRD. And WP:BLP. Disputed content comes out until there is consensus for its inclusion, and the only people I've seen reversing that in real content disputes have been trolls and POV-pushers. The presumption for inclusion refers to the existence of an article, not to disputed content within it. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is correct and well established. The burden is on whoever wants to include material to justify it. It's incorrect to argue that anything that has ever been added must be retained until someone can cite policy mandating its removal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. A well-established principal.--Mantanmoreland 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is relevant in respect of user conduct, edit-warring over links is wrong, even if the link is unequivocally not an attack site. Consensus was very rapidly achieved to link michaelmoore.com in the article. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since several people have evidently misunderstood this as meaning that the default is to delete articles, I introduce 18.1, which is hopefully clearer. This is the bold, revert, discuss model spelled out, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither side should have the burden of proof; content disputes should be decided by preponderance of evidence and consensus, without prejudice one way or the other. *Dan T.* 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should. WP:BRD. Boldly add, revert if disputed, then discuss. If there is no consensus to include something, it should not be included, especially where living individuals are involved. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. We are building the encyclopedia. Refer to points 1, 6 and 10 of Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset#Safe behaviours. LessHeard vanU 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose dragging the inclusionary/exclusionary debate into this in any form. ShaleZero 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not inclusion / exclusion, it's about how content disputes are managed. Consider: an editor includes text in an article that advances a minority point of view. It's reverted. What do we do? we take it to talk, and it stays out of the article until consensus is reached. Anything else is madness. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Already in policy, and if anything more applicable at this sensitive issue. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do no (unnecessary) harm

19) In meta-debate, dogmatic stances based on support of or opposition to certain positions are unhelpful. It is expected that editors will take an intelligent and thoughtful approach to discussing the merits of individual links in meta-debate, but with a presumption that links to sites which contain substantial attack content will not be linked without a compelling reason, out of consideration for those attacked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Debate over whether we may or may not link to certain classes of site in certain contexts has obscured the fact that in many cases the accusations are fatuous and linking them is never going to change that. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And how is anybody to determine for themselves whether something is "fatuous" when they're "protected" from actually going there to see it? Is it better to have a censorship board meeting in a star chamber to decide this for everybody else? *Dan T.* 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point. Arguing for links "because BADSITES is bad policy" or arguing for removal citing RFAr/MONGO are both bad reasons; we should address the actual link in the actual context, not hijack every single debate to rehash the same argument (which is probably why we're here in the first place). I thought you were in favour of applying a pragmatic approach? Guy (Help!) 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, support the first clause (in favor of deciding things intelligently and non-dogmatically), but am uncomfortable with the second, where a biased presumption is snuck in (dogmatically?). *Dan T.* 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not dogmatic, it's a theme which runs through a lot of Wikipedia policy: no personal attacks, civility, biographies of living persons, Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT#NEWS - read through Jimbo's statements on people dealing with people and first and a decent respect for people's feelings is clearly of surpassing importance. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring and courtesy blanking

20) In some cases, consideration of an off-site allegation is necessary in order to establish whether there is a case to answer. If after debate it is decided that there is no merit to the allegations, it is appropriate to mark the debate as closed and to refactor to remove references to the meritless allegations, out of consideration for the editors concerned. Courtesy blanking of meta debate is also an accepted practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be justified in some cases, but it is always in tension with our spirit of openness, where somebody researching the history of a dispute has access to all the relevant facts. *Dan T.* 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in the history. We only oversight or delete privacy violations, or under "right to vanish". This is not in any way inconsistent with openness. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see the blanking of entire discussion pages when they're no longer relevant (if the pages have stuff on them that's unnecessarily embarrassing and shouldn't be left where they turn up when you google somebody's name), but I don't like the bowdlerization of discussions by censoring out some of the external links so you can't see exactly what people are talking about. People have even done idiotic things like purposely inserting misspellings of site names in others' comments (making them look illiterate) in order to keep from directly speaking the Evil Name of Lord Vold... er, I mean an attack site. *Dan T.* 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Again with the censorship thing. These are real human beings we're dealing with, and if people feel harassed or intimidated by content in old debates then we absolutely should use courtesy blanking or refactoring, we do this all the time when people ask for deletion debates of vanity articles to be blanked. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship, no matter what happy face you might put on it by using some euphemistic description of it. There may be instances where censorship is actually necessary or desirable (like keeping dangerous information out of the hands of enemies in wartime), but one should be honest about what one is advocating. *Dan T.* 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! CENSORSHIP! more CENSORSHIP! yet more CENSORSHIP!!!Indef-block Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and tell him he's got it all wrong. Use of the word censorship in debates of this kind is almost always indicative of lack of any better argument, please choose a better rationale for opposing the courtesy blanking or refactoring of debates which have the potential to cause real personal distress to our editors. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument was against refactoring, removing links, changing spelling of words, etc. not courtesy blanking to prevent information from spilling onto Google. Which is most likely what Wales was doing. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a specific reason why a discussion not being blanked would cause problems (i.e. an Arbcom case, including accusations of misconduct against a user with their real name), then yes, courtesy blanking is fine. But this is a compromise of our principle of openness, and we can't do it whenever someone says "well, this is causing me personal distress!" -Amarkov moo! 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If the debate is over, and the history available for reference, then no principle is sacrificed in acceding to people's reasonable desire not to have their faces rubbed in things. It's not as if advanced forensic skills are required to find the discussion, after all. I'm also not aware that we have a principle of openness that could be said to override our principle of treating people with respect. Sure, we aim to be honest, neutral and complete, but we also aim to avoid undue weight and causing unnecessary distress. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Links not always necessary

21) In some cases it is possible to discuss a site within an article without including a link, where there is no significant detriment to the encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. One can discuss a sewer without crawling into it.--Mantanmoreland 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. In the case of antisocialmedia.net the site has no merit as a source but its existence is of some significance to Bagley. We can note its existence and content without being compelled to actually deliver people there. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; people should be encouraged to read all sides of an issue in dispute so that they have the information to make up their own mind, rather than have it decided for them behind their backs. *Dan T.* 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors, guided by policy, make decisions to include and exclude things all the time. And you must live in a very tiny world if you think my only source of information, or even principle source, iw Wikipedia. Since I can access Wikipedia, guess what! I can also access google, Yahoo and Ask search engines. Why - guess what! - I have access to the world wide web!! I guess I am not like you in that I do not look to Wikipedia to tell me what to read, ever. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but we do include external links for simplicity, and to be complete. Not including one is picking a side. A user should be able to goto an article and then find a link to their official site as a norm if one exists. They should not be expected to have to jump through additional steps because Wikipedia does not like the site. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Subjective and therefore likely to produce edit conflict. LessHeard vanU 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on common-sense grounds. Search engines exist. Once we've described a Web site in any detail and given its name, there's no effective difference between that and providing a link. ShaleZero 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an argument that just as easily supports the proposal. The real question here is, do we have an obligation to publicize everything that is on the web? My answer is: that is a nonsensical position. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - excluding the name of someone's website is an unabashed effort to silence them. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it silence anyone? I have my own web-page - if I do not provide a link to your web-page, am I silencing you? Wikipedia does not provide a link to my web-page - am I silenced? Boo-hooh, you don't have a link to my web-page, you are oppressing me!! Give me a break! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support It is obvious, and it should be left to the judgement of editors working on an article, guided by policy. Sandifer's dismissal of this as nonsense is itself patently nonsense. We have no obligation to publicize anyone's website, and not to do so is in no way silencing. Silencing is when you literally gag someone, or kill them - or deny them the means to communicate. Anyone who has a website by definition is not silenced. Phil, look up the word "silenced" in the dictionary, it just doesn't mean what you think it means. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The people you're muzzling and restricting are actually the writers and readers of Wikipedia, for whom you've constrained the range of discussion and sources of information, not the external site writers. *Dan T.* 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, muzzling, restricting, such emotive terms. Actually this is perfectly normal practice in all types of content: just because we can include something doesn't mean we must or even should. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you had better get a dictionary (hey - if you are online now, you are free to try answers.com ... uh, must I provide the link for you right here, or are you capable of figuring out how to access it yourself?) and look up "muzzle" and "restrict." Wikipedia is not the FCC. We have no power to restrict or muzzle anyone. Nothing we do can restrict or muzzle anyone. Do you think if I don't put a copy on Mein Kampf on my bookshelf I am muzzling nazi's right to free speech? Figure it out, DanT - just because we do not include it in Wikipedia does not mean we are censoring it. You must have delusions of grandeur if you think that! The fact is this: the proposed principle gives Wikipedian editors choice. If you reject this principle and requre Wikipedia editors to include every website, it is you who are denying their freedom to exercise their good judgement. You have no right to do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Their judgment should never include ignoring a particular side, or view of an issue. Complete is the goal, no matter how impossible, we should not be attempting to purposely fail this goal. We are further assuming others will read an article, that is suppose to contain all sides, and realize we are excluding information on purpose. There should be a disclaimer if we are purposely leaving out information. Not all readers are editors and not all will even know this discussion ever existed. Like any encyclopedia they will believe they can read a complete description, or as complete as possible for the size of the article. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative support based upon the in some cases proviso. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This might literally be true, but I think this principle would in practice be interpreted as "Links should be removed whenever possible, unless their removal would absolutely positively violate NPOV". --Alecmconroy 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it literally is true. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, links are not always technically necessary. But we don't really need any links, we can just give the site name and people can Google the link. We provide links as a convenience to readers. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Most of these cases concern courtesy links to the websites of biography subjects. If the websites are offenisve we don't need to link to them in order to discuss the topic. By extension this may also apply to extremely offensive or illegal websites, including blacklisted sites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Links aren't courtesies, they're not conveniences or bonuses-- they're an essential part of our encyclopedia. Excluding the occasional reference to a print book, our links are an essential way we ensure verifiability. Indeed, since Wikipedia isn't a reliable source in and of itself, our links are in some ways, the most IMPORTANT part of our site. --Alecmconroy 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

False. Links are there as a courtesy to the reader. Links to sources are an aid to verification, external links to non-sources are there to provide additional context, but WP:EL makes it quite clear that they are an adjunct not an integral part of the project. A Wikipedia with only text-based citations and no external links would be marginally less rich but no less informative. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Standard practice is to include links to the official website of the organization an article is about and/or to any which are reliable sources for relevant and notable information. That's simply a fact. You want to call that standard practice, "a courtesy to the reader"? Ok, that's 'true'... in the same sense that wikilinks, section headings, disambiguation pages, and proper grammar are 'courtesies to the reader'. These 'courtesies' are things which community consensus has overwhelmingly found to be beneficial aspects of the encyclopedia. For years. The 'BADSITES' philosophy seeks to set exceptions on these standard practices for linking... after all, if it only applied to links which weren't reliable sources of relevant info or official sites for the subject then those are already not allowed by existing policy. This then is only about removing links which are, in fact, 'proper' under standard practice, but which go to web-sites which we have decided to censor because they are offensive to some of our users. --CBD 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant In the case of ASM.net, the choice in the end is either to make some sort of link, or omit reference to the matter at all. If mentioned, the matter must be cited; if cited, a link is made, because the sources name the site. Whether or not the link is hot is a technicality. In the case of TNH, the site is used as a reference in a number of articles having nothing to with "attacks" per se, so it is not a question of discussing the site. That is also more or less the case for most of the other examples. In the case of WR, the problem arose during the initial BADSITES discussion that the proponents of BADSITES would attack WR by making unsubstantiated claims about its content, and then suppress refutations by invoking BADSITES to erase citations given in refutation of their claims. Thus the stated principle is true, but the "some cases" are few and typically not relevant to the controversy. Mangoe 13:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed ethics

22) Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is either meaningless (everybody has to live with the consequences of whatever decision is made) or biased in the direction of deciding in favor of whichever party to a controversy puts on the most convincing drama queen act claiming that they're personally harmed by something (according to their own subjective feelings). Decisions should be made more objectively than that. *Dan T.* 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ: when a website specifically identifies a particular individual, that individual is uniquely qualified to determine the harm done. I used this principle to nominate Seth Finkelstein's and Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia articles for deletion and I see no reason why it ought to be less applicable to Wikipedian volunteers targeted by other websites. Individuals who were not specifically targeted have the option to walk away from the problem with no personal consequences. Wikipedian volunteers have been harassed at their workplaces, etc. It is rather uncivil to reduce these concerns to an epithet such as drama queen act. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't support the deletion of the Brandt or Finkelstein articles, because I don't support veto power on the part of individuals over articles on them. I also don't support veto power on the part of individual Wikipedians over linking to outside sites that happen to mention them. The way it's been applied, even links to totally unrelated things in the same domain as a message thread that attacked somebody have been subjected to this alleged veto power. *Dan T.* 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That paints with a rather broad brush. Durova^Charge! 02:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As a kind of "anti-veto", I support this principle. If I don't care whether or not a link is given on my article, it's stupid to say "WE MUST KEEP IT OUT, IT MIGHT CAUSE HIM DISTRESS!" But this is definitely not a good idea in the other direction, where people think a link isn't bad and I want it removed anyway. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, absolutely oppose. I hate to go all religious-y on people, but the fact is that our moral compasses are not perfect and that we often, even as good people, make poor moral judgments with good intent. The principle espoused here is an invitation to an abdication of responsibility. And real-world responsibility for what we write here is a continuing sticking point. What we do here has the potential to harm real people; but BADSITES has focused entirely on the possibility of harm to Wikipedia editors. The juxtaposition of the two has turned BADSITES into what looks like a shield to help protect editors-- and especially administrators-- from the consequences of what they have written. I have been particularly bothered by the way it has been used to enable personal attacks on former editors or for that matter even myself. We need better moral principles than this. Mangoe 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Clarification, not Permission

23) The parties requesting clarification of the interpretation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO as relating to Attack sites are acting in good faith with a view to restoring to Wikipedia the potential to use the best sources permissible when required, and are not seeking to evade any other policy which may constrain the use of links or discussion of off-wiki material nor to link to unreliable/non-notable content otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. LessHeard vanU 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh are they. Can anyone point me to a situation where a good source has been removed and stayed removed from an article simply because it's an attack site? Which evidence items support this? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First point, yes (per AGF). Second point... where do you suggest we begin looking for "...stayed removed" links? I cannot be certain that it has happened, so I am arguing for the enshrined ability to be able to link in the future. LessHeard vanU 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Instances where "good sources were removed but didn't stay removed" is precisely the point. Some editors feel that the MONGO case _requires_ us to purge otherwise good sources-- resulting in disruption, edit wars, and bad feelings. Ultimately, the community corrects these mistakes-- but a clarification of the MONGO case will help stop them from happening in the future. --06:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And others feel that opposition to an interpretation of the MONGO case requires them to defend the ability to link attack sites. Which brings us full circle. This principle begs the question - I have not seen a situation where "the best sources possible" are attack sites, or a situation where a demonstrably reliable source has been removed and its removal endorsed by consensus simply because it is an attack site; usually the problem is that it is manifestly not a reliable source. Reliable sources tend not to go in for personalised harassment. The New York Times article in the Essjay controversy "outs" a Wikipedia editor, but it is a reliable source and written neutrally, it is not an attack, and the New York Times does not make a habit of personalising disputes. It is a reliable source, not an attack site. So I'll ask again: which point of evidence supports this? I don't see why we should have a principle based on a completely theoretical situation which does not actually apply here - no reliable sources have remained out of articles as a result of the current dispute, as far as I can tell, and we ave other principles which better serve the same purpose because they aren't based on a hypothetical situation which has never arisen. You could have it as a finding of fact, that all parties have acted in good faith (which is not disputed), but it's no kind of a principle. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"...to link to unreliable/non-notable content..." Actions speak louder than words. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This applies to some people requesting a clarification. But some misunderstand the external link policy and wish to include links that shouldn't be included, and some are just trolls. Amnesty by association isn't all that much better than guilt by association. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No special rules for external links

24) Use of external links is subject to the same content and behavioural policies as everything else on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. All of the current problems and confusion have come out of trying to define (and interpret) 'special rules' for external links. There is absolutely no need. We already have a policy that if a user posts personally identifying info it gets removed and the user blocked or warned... exactly what the special rules for external links to such information would have us do. We already require that sources be reliable and their information relevant/notable to the subject... so why would our handling of links be any different than magazines or any other source? We already have a policy against making personal attacks on users, and a controversial practice of sometimes removing such attacks... why did we need to re-create this policy specially for links with the controversial 'removal' clause given unwarranted (and disruptive) preference? Due to the highly subjective nature of what is and is not 'harassment' or 'personal attacks' reversion of these was never given an exemption for 3RR purposes... why did that change when 'harassment' and 'attacks' through external links was added to the consideration? The resulting (disputed) changes to WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:3RR to make removal of personal attacks not subject to 3RR effectively elevates Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks from rejected proposal to policy which has been enforced by blocks. Apply the long established policies and principles to external links and all the confusion and over-reaching of these 'new' processes goes away. --CBD 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Concur strongly with the rationale (if not confident with the conclusion).LessHeard vanU 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is impermissible to post an attack, it is impermissible to take the attack offsite and link it. We don't do POV forks, and we don't link to POV forks taken offsite. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question CBD writes, "We already have a policy that if a user posts personally identifying info it gets removed and the user blocked or warned." Is this true? Does this policy apply to article namespace and links? If that is clear and unambiguous and not under debate, I agree. But many of the principles above suggest to me that this is not the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK#Protection and WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information. --CBD 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose It's not unambiguous or uncontroversial that personally identifying information is always deleted. We've seen in several cases where, if it's posted often enough, it's presumed to be known and is just left. We desperately need stronger suport and enforcement. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the information is revealed and widely reported it is the proverbial 'cat out of the bag' situation and efforts to then enforce the 'privacy' of clearly public information are both pointless and disruptive. --CBD 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this principle -- a link to, say, an article which dogmatically argues for a certain view printed in a peer-reviewed academic journal might well be considered a reliable source regarding the view which it advocates and an acceptable external link. Imbalanced articles of this nature are quite common in peer-reviewed journals covering topics in the social sciences. Yet, under this principle, links to imbalanced articles would be banned, as their content would blatantly violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. We cannot afford to uncritically extend all of Wikipedia's "content and behavioural policies" to the content contained in external links. Restrictions on external link content should be considered individually. John254 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are taking this in ways that were not intended. It has nothing to do with the external site itself, but rather with whether the purpose of including the link complies with our policies. Obviously we should sometimes link to sites which do not present a NPOV... just as we include paraphrases and quotations which are not NPOV, so long as we ascribe them to their sources. I can quote from and/or link to a neo-nazi hate site if it is relevant, but just as I can't write (or quote) that material to attack another editor (e.g. quoting a screed about Jews being sub-human to attack a Jewish user) I can't link to it to make those same attacks 'at one remove'. I was not saying that we should limit external links to sites which follow our content and behavioural policies, but rather that the use of external links on Wikipedia must follow those policies. To clarify this I added 'Use of' to the start of the principle above. --CBD 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou shalt not excessively annoy others, but thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.

25) The FidoNet policy, from dialup bulletin board system days, had this as its cornerstone (section 9.1 of the linked document). This is a good principle to apply here too; one should avoid doing things that one has reason to believe are likely to be construed as an attack unless there's a very compelling overriding reason, but at the same time, one should not go out of one's way to construe something as an attack if, under an assumption of good faith, it does not appear to be intended as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems like a good principle, and one that's consistent with our own "Assume Good Faith" and "Don't Be a Dick". *Dan T.* 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, in this context - in any other context it would be so reasonable as to go without saying; it is certainly unnecessary and redundant with NPOV and AGF. But in this context, where we are discussing attack sites that have spread on the web vicious innuendo and have defamed editors who act in good faith, who have been outed and stalked, receiving threatening letters and phone calls including threats against family members, it at best is trivial and inappropriate, and at worst offensive for trivializing the problems (which sometimes require the intervention of police) attack sites cause fellow editors. I am not saying I am sure what the solution to this problem is, but it is a serious problem and people who make light of it are, if acting in good faith, ignorant, and if they are not ignorant, then they are bullies. Let's be clear and honest about the issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Durova^Charge! 13:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That something "so reasonable to go without saying" can become "offensive" depending on whose ox is gored is a perfect illustration of the sorts of mindsets I am going against here. *Dan T.* 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How you think being threatened on the telephone, and having one's family threatened, can be "so reasonable to go without saying" to anybody is beyond me. We are not talking about offensive speech. We are talking about an attack on a fellow editor that requires police protection. For you to keep insisting that the latter is equivalent to the former is either stupid, dogmatic, or cruel. I am not sure whic one it is, but I know that it is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When did the topic of discussion shift from including the links in an article to the harassment itself? ShaleZero 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone requires police protection... I'd suggest calling the police. Overall that seems like a much more productive plan than compromising the neutrality of the encyclopedia in the name of censorship and hoping that will somehow magically 'protect' people. --CBD 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the motivation for developing the BADSITES proposal and for seeking some alternative policy concerning attack sites. It's the whole point of the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So the links and commentary removed here, here, and here involved threats that required (or ought to have required) intervention of police? Should I call 911 and report that somebody tried to link to Wikipedia Review? I'm sure they'd send an officer right over. *Dan T.* 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what he stated?--MONGO 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of external links

26) Per Wikipedia:External links: ''Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. From the lead of that policy:

Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. External link sections shouldn't be a compendium of everything interesting people have said on the topic. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit irrelevant The situation that caught my attention in the first place was the removal of a citation, not an external link. That is also the issue in the ASM.net situation. Mangoe 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable

27) WP:NPOV is listed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a non-negotiable issue at m:Foundation issues. In the past, Wikipedia projects have been forcibly shut down for failing to adhere to this policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Factually true. Combines with next principle to make the main point. Phil Sandifer 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. *Dan T.* 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur LessHeard vanU 12:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In the context of this case, I find this formulation to be unnecessarily inflammatory. No one on any side of this case is suggesting that we adopt a policy that fundamentally threatens the nature of the site. Newyorkbrad 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of this case's possible outcomes would "fundamentally threaten the nature of the site," but the idea that articles should treat Wikipedia editors differently from non-editors is still an NPOV issue. ShaleZero 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The happenstance that a publicly known person edits Wikipedia generally does not exempt him or her from discussion in mainspace articles. As established in the Zacheus-jkb case, "Where a person is notable in his or her own right, legitimate discussion of that person in appropriate articles is not restricted because that person happens to edit Wikipedia. In borderline situations, good judgment must be used in determining, for example, whether to refer to such a person as an example of a phenomenon rather than referring to a different individual." (Disclosure: Based on a workshop proposal that I submitted.) This is a fundamentally different situation, however, from attacks or "outing" attempts based specifically on, and targeted at, an individual's editing here, particularly when the editor is not otherwise notable. Newyorkbrad 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how that allows us to draw a distinction between Wikipedia editors who are "outed" and harassed and non-editors who suffer the same fate. ShaleZero 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Outing" in this context means posting personal identifying information about someone who chooses to edit Wikipedia anonymously. I don't see how that can happen to someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia at all but is known for their "real world" activities. (It could happen, I suppose, to someone who anonymously edits a different website, but I don't recall that specific issue having arisen as yet.) Newyorkbrad 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really any different if the person being harassed was merely unknown before the harassment began (as in the incident detailed in the Michelle Malkin article, with college students who were only known on-campus having their names and phone numbers published for an international audience) instead of being anonymous or pseudonymous? The resulting harassment is similar or the same either way, and the contact information is out there either way. It's only the way it got started that's different - and the fact that one is a member of our community and the other is not. The entire "outing" distinction, especially when most opponents of linking are focused on the damage done by the harassment, is being used as a way to restrict the policy to protecting our community and our community alone - see any of MONGO's posts where he asks if a site has "outed our contributors."

And the non-Wikipedia version is definitely possible - I spent four years as a forum moderator at GameFAQs, and the moderating team there has the same kind of...uh, fanbase, that Wiki admins tend to collect. Outing and harassment was a definite concern, and happened more than once, including once where the site admin's address and phone number were repeatedly posted on our and other message boards. I'm grateful that these incidents never rose to notable levels, but if they had I'd argue for their inclusion in the encyclopedia. ShaleZero 19:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the only argument for an individual's notability is as the victim of online harassment, there should be a presumption against including discussion of the matter in Wikipedia. "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." (From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; passed 11-0; see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad.) Newyorkbrad 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so per those cases the question is not whether we should link to sites that attack Wikipedia users but whether we should link to sites that attack anyone. And on that topic I'll just echo something I wrote a few days ago. Harassment should be treated in the same way as other content that a reasonable person would find offensive, like pornography and hate speech. Refrain from linking to it when it's not directly relevant to a notable subject, but be willing to include it where it is relevant and important - we should not sacrifice encyclopedic completeness to try and reunite cat with bag. Unlike the NPOV issues, though, I'm fully willing to accept that reasonable Wiki-oids can disagree there. ShaleZero 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, when you see edits like this, it's clear that the WP:NPA link policy has outlived whatever usefullness it may have ever had. Censoring the actual content of an article, not the external link section, in this manner is utterly unacceptable, and it's pathetic to pretend that removing all mention of a subject is at all encyclopedic. Zurishaddai 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Process must be followed

28) The declaration that all editorial content must be decided via the wiki process is a non-negotiable issue proscribed by the Wikimedia Foundation. No policy may supercede it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, per m:Foundation issues. Phil Sandifer 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. *Dan T.* 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "wiki process"? Without a better definition, this principle doesn't really accomplish anything, and in fact is probably counterproductive. -Amarkov moo! 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to bring that up with the Foundation - their exact words are "The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content" Phil Sandifer 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fuck process - the original policy. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm' the one being labeled as disruptive and disrespectful??? *Dan T.* 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a misreading of IAR and of m:Foundation issues. And also a bit of slipperiness in the word "process." If anything, most of the stuff that passes as "process" on en is in violation of this Foundation issue, not examples of it. Phil Sandifer 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Penumbra of NPOV

29) WP:NPOV states that all significant views must be represented fairly and without bias. Many of our other content policies are implicit in this mandate, which requires complete and careful coverage of all subjects. This is the basic mission of the site, and cannot be overridden by any policy, regardless of numerical consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the key point - encyclopedic completeness trumps all. That does not mean that we must always link to attack sites, but it certainly means that a blind declaration that we must never do so without any reference to questions fo article content cannot possibly be policy, no matter what. Phil Sandifer 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm sure this would be relevant if anyone had ever produced an example of an attack site that was a reliable source for anything. Sure, some people have foolishly interpreted sites which personalise an individual dispute as a sideline, as attack sites; they are simply wrong and need to be told so (principle 2 above does this, by saying what is meant by the original MONGO principle). As it stands I've not seen a single example of a link which has been removed and not reinstated by consensus, where the link is a reliable source for anything. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely see where you're going with this objection - it seems very much like your objection to this principle is "it matches community practice when links have been inserted." Phil Sandifer 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant - Agree with JzG. Besides, Phil's reading of NPOV is highly selective and apparently biased. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. Phil Sandifer 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether or not this is true for Phil, but I think it's quite an important and noteworthy point that WP:NPOV can indeed be interpreted in an non-NPOV way. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. NPOV is a basic, fundamental principle. *Dan T.* 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur This is the point I have been addressing earlier. LessHeard vanU 12:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, support, support. And "all subjects" includes noteworthy instances of harassment, no matter who the target is or what Web sites they visit. ShaleZero 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is everything. --Alecmconroy 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Free as in beer

30) Wikipedia is free as in beer, not free as in speech. The fact that we can, or legally may, link to something, does not mean that we should, or that it is necessarily permissible within Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some people seem to be coming to this from an ideological position that Wikipedia must allow freedom of speech. No, we are under no such obligation. Terms such as "chilling", "censorship", "suppression", "muzzle" - all these are actively harmful to the formation of consensus, rooted in dogma and an over assumption of bad faith. What we are dealing with here is not the right of people to free speech on their websites, it's the right of people to bring their or other people's free speech here. In truth you have precisely two enforceable rights: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Wikipedia is not free speech. We are allowed to restrict the actions of others, and we are subject to restrictions ourselves. We may not harass, we may not attack, we may not make legal threats, we may not defame, and if we do we are likely to be shown the door. This is not about asserting an absolute right to link attack sites: no such right exists. It will always be possible for egregious linking to attack sites to be treated with great severity, and nobody would want it otherwise I hope. It's about where we draw the line. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The "free" in Wikipedia's self-description actually refers to Free content, which is a concept not entirely like free speech or beer, but which is actually closer to the former since it refers more specifically to the right to do anything one likes with the content rather than the right to get it without paying money (though the latter usually is true as well). You're right, though, that constitutional rights don't directly apply within the community. *Dan T.* 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While our policies place many restrictions on what editors may write on Wikipedia, both in talk space and article space, they need to be free to work within those limits. They might be hyperbolic terms, but "chilling effect," "censorship" and "muzzling," can have real meanings on Wikipedia - especially where NPOV is concerned. ShaleZero 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the principle, but not necessarily with the rationale. Censorship in this context is the prohibiting of actions beyond that which is allowed by policy. LessHeard vanU 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Our content, which is what we are all about, is absolutely free as in speech, not as in beer; we are libre, not gratis. That said, I appreciate the principle that we do not permit absolute free speech here, but this is not the way to say it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. We're both, even if neither freedom is anarchistically absolutely. You have to have a computer and an internet connection to read it-- so there is a small cost attached. You can't just say anything you want-- there are some limits. But despite such limits, we're still the Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit. --Alecmconroy 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of an attack site

31) The definition of an attack site, as meant by principle 3 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO is: a site which systematically engages in harassment, outing or attacks against named Wikipedia editors. As a matter of clarification, it was not intended that this would cover a website whose priniciple business is entirely independent of Wikipedia but has some spillover from a past Wikipedia dispute. Sites named in this case which are attack sites include: Encyclopedia Dramatica, antisocialmedia, Wikipedia Review. Sites which do not constitute attack sites include michaelmoore.com, overstock.com, donmurphy,net

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The hundred pound gorilla. Attack sites do exist, the MONGO RFAr unquestionably and justly restricted wilful linking to such sites, and yet we have disputes centred in some cases on sites which manifestly are not attack sites, in an apparent attempt to weaken the prohibition on linking to harassment content. This clarifies the principle in the MONGO arbitration without removing it and without impacting on the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The latest attempt to gerrymander a definition that will take in the sites offensive to the Clique but not do any collateral damage elsewhere, but it won't work; actually, Encyclopedia Dramatica does not focus on Wikipedia or "outing" at all; it just does such things as a side effect of its focus on tasteless, immature humor. Wikipedia Review focuses on criticizing Wikipedia, often baselessly, where attacking particular individuals is just one consequence of its main thrust of having a forum for varied views about Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, are you being deliberately offensive or is it accidental? The point of this arbitration is to clarify the definition of attack sites per the MONGO arbitration. I know you're doing your level best to get it nullified entirely so you can link to attack sites, but most of us are actually concerned with coming up with a workable definition that will avoid the narrowly defined problem, which is the good-faith removal of sites which are not, by any reasonable definition, attack sites. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This definition would still allow the removal of "reliable sites", "notable sites", and "useful sites". If you're confident that no such sites exist or could ever exist, then add the words "Non-notable, unreliable, and non-useful" to the definition, to prevent the kind of "misidentifications" that have cropped up in the past. If you would want an attack site purged even if it were a reliable, notable, and useful source, then that is incompatible with my conception of NPOV. --Alecmconroy 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonemouse has pointed out above that Wikipedia Watch is notable, has its own article, and is linked to. I'm not that familiar with the site, but this would appears to be another counterexample the proposed definition. --Alecmconroy 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So there's this site, whose focus is strange obscene things they call "humor". Since they are very liberal about including things, there are some attacks on Wikipedia editors. One of these editors doesn't like that, so he makes some edits there. However, the folks over on the other site link him to his Wikipedia account, and then features the article about him on the front page. Now, this seems to just be "spillover from a past dispute", so the "humor" site shouldn't be considered an attack site, correct? Oops, I just described the circumstances that caused ED links to be banned. Guess the definition doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be describing ED. That site, more than any other, could justly be said to have been intentionally embargoed by the MONGO arbitration. Their version of humour is the polar opposite of Uncyclopedia; their content policy might be described as "how to be stupid and just not funny". But their attacks on Wikipedia editors are unquestionably real, malicious and vicious. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The language of the proposal refers to the host of the attack material, whereas site may refer to the location of the material held by the host "site". (If you think this is "wikilawyering", mea culpa, but it is this vagueness that has driven much of this controversy). LessHeard vanU 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This seems to be the spirit of BADSITES, put rather bluntly. Naming the specific sites that people wish to be "banned" is refreshing honesty, since at least the issue is not being skirted. That said, naming specific sites is problematic; when one of these sites become notable, what happens? I know, I know, "that isn't likely to happen, dave!" The possibility exists that it will and someone has to ask. When this happens, there is going to be enough uproar over its inclusion, this good faith attempt will add disruption, as BADSITES did. I advise not attempting to define an attack site if your objective is reducing disruption. An attack link definition seems like a more attainable goal. Additionally, using the phrase "attack site" is problematic, in that it could be creating more Wikipedia jargon that is somewhat out of touch with what non Wikipedia users would understand as an attack site. Using the language "attack site" is a recipe for tedious time consuming bureacracy at the least and at the most unnecessary disruption. The phrase "attack link" is much less objectionable. daveh4h 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

oppose not because I want to protect Wikipedia Review (which has really gone downhill of late), but because this in essence bans all Wikipedia-critical sites which do not accept the principle of pseudonymity as typically claimed here. And it is not reasonable for them to accept such a claim, because conflict-of-interest investigations are likely to result in such revelations (or at least seek them). This is a principle that will backfire on us if adopted, because another Essjay-like situation will eventually arise, and this principle would then be invoked to protect the offender, and we would be caught in a cover-our-buttocks embarrassing situation. It would be terribly embarrassing if D-n--l Br-ndt dug up another glaring COI, and the NYT reported it and cited WR as the source, and we found ourselves fighting over whether to admit how the matter got out. Mangoe 00:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the scenario you posit has already occurred with the Essjay controversy itself. Notification to the media in that case came out of a discussion on Wikipedia Review. When a long-time user in good standing attempted to include this with a link to the thread as a reliable source for that origin it was repeatedly removed and the user blocked. Wikipedia Review played a significant part in an event which received worldwide media coverage. Sorry folks, but that's the truth... and the 'BADSITES' version of WP:NPA says that we have to suppress that truth because we can't link or even refer to Wikipedia Review. People can edit war past 3RR to keep it out, block users who try to provide neutral encyclopedic coverage of the event, and demonize them for engaging in 'harassment'. Indeed, by many accounts I am violating the 'policy' and 'harassing people' right now merely by saying the name 'Wikipedia Review' in the course of discussion. Frankly, it's grotesque. --CBD 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's very interesting, because WR is mentioned in the Essjay controversy timeline. So if one is determined, one can look up the thread in question, but it takes a certain effort to pick it out of the mass of other posts and topics. And once one gets to the thread in question, there is indeed excellent documentation of Brandt's end of the exercise, but there is also a lot of the usual WR posturing (and in some posts, incoherent gibbering). And there is no doubt at all that the thread arose out of Brandt's determination to identify Essjay on the basis of inconsistencies in his claims and behavior which suggested that his biographical details were fabrications. It was mitigated only because Essjay essentially outed himself through his inconsistent bio on Wikia; had he not, it is conceivable that Brandt (or the New Yorker fact-checkers) could have exposed some of Essjay's statements as lies in any case.

We cannot escape the problem that the real identities of editors are not always irrelevant. And current administrator practice violates that anonymity principle all the time, in identifying sockpuppets and in identifying COI edits from interested parties. It comes across as a bit hypocritical, particularly when there is a contest between a group of administrators and and a group of (mostly former) editors. The bad blood between the WR people and some of the participants in this case is immediately obvious to anyone who reads WR for ten minutes, and the interpretation of BADSITES as a means to prevent any WR criticism from getting through to Wikipedia comes readily to mind. Most of that "criticism" certainly does not bear linking to except possibly as evidence in WikiBureaucracy cases, but it's just a matter of time before someone on WR finds another glaring COI. Mangoe 13:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "linking to attack site"

31b) "Linking to an attack site" is a bad-faith edit made with the intention of harrassing fellow editors by linking to a page which is non-notable, unreliable, and decreases the quality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I oppose the whole "attack site" terminology, but if we really want to have something like attack sites, this would be the way to do it. Focus on CONDUCT, not CONTENT. Limit it to bad-faith edits which degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. We can't redefine "to link" as "to link in bad faith with intent to harass". Adding a bunch of conditions onto the definition of a common verb is just confusing. -Amarkov moo! 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per wording, not intent. As well as Amarkov's concerns there is the definition of "site" problem advanced by me above. LessHeard vanU 13:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There's enough in the way of attempts to redefine terminology in bizarrely contorted ways already going on in this dispute for me to oppose doing still more of it. *Dan T.* 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not advertisement space

32) Wikipedia may choose or not choose to include "hot links" to other web sites. This is entirely separate from including non-hot link references as content inside articles. Choosing not to hot link does not affect content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed. --DHeyward 07:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary and irrelevant. There are already perfectly good policies to deal with the issue of link spamming, but this is a separate issue from anything under discussion here. *Dan T.* 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support let's be honest: links can promote a site. There has always been a standard of compelling reason for adding a link, it has just been informal, but anyone with considerable editing experience knows that links are deleted all the time from articles because they are not notable or promote a fringe view. It happens all the time. Why doesn't it happen more often to sites that attack wikipedia editors? Methinks some editors have found a back-door way to attack other editors, thinking they are evading WP:NPA in the process. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It couldn't be more clear. The users who added links to www.michaelmoore.com predicted, years in advance, that Moore would someday do something which could be called an attack if you squinted really hard and held your breath until you started to black out... they "found a back-door way to attack other editors". That's got to be it. There is no other possible reason they could have put links to that site on the Michael Moore page and related articles. Ditto the links to the Don Murphy and Teresa Nielsen Hayden sites years before they contained any sort of reference to Wikipedia... all an elaborate 'back-door' around NPA. The people who tried to add links to Wikipedia Review to source the statements about notification to the media of Essjay's identity coming out of discussion there... clearly evil bastards out to attack other editors. Couldn't possibly have been just linking to it as a reliable source for notable and relevant information. The inclusion of mention of antisocialmedia.net in an article about the person who runs that web-site? Perfidy of the highest order... imagine mentioning an evil website in the article about the person who runs it... just because it has been the source of multiple articles in major newspapers. Have they no shame? Why, someone would have to be "stupid, dogmatic, or cruel" not to see the monstrosity of it all.

Sorry, what was that I was saying before about an excess of sarcasm? Seriously, I can't imagine what would ever prompt someone to resort to sarcasm in the face of all this calm and reasoned debate. Oi! --CBD 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CB, if I can get you to turn off your sarcasm chip for just thirty seconds: I'm not suggesting that people put in links anticipating they would be used to attack editors and thus not in good faith. I am stating that some editors want to keep attack sites that have been used to out, harrass, and promote the harrassment of editors and are doing so in bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm suggesting that's absurd. People wanted to keep links to Michael Moore's website on the Michael Moore article because not doing so would be ridiculous censorship and violation of Wikipedia's impartiality. Ditto 'Making Light', 'Don Murphy', 'Antisocialmedia', et cetera. You describing this as them acting "in bad faith" because they "want to keep attack sites" is a wholly unjustified example of assuming bad faith. There are perfectly valid and reasonable arguments for keeping those links. Tossing those reasons aside in favor of assuming that users with good histories are 'acting in bad faith to harass' other users (with whom they have no apparent past conflict) is one of the larger (of many) problems with the 'BADSITES' movement. It's utterly unjustified, disruptive, and incredibly incivil to your fellow users. People aren't opposing you because they're "stupid, dogmatic, or cruel". They're opposing you because they're convinced you are dead wrong. --CBD 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said people are ignorant, stupid, or cruel for opposing me. I said people are stupid, ignorant, or curel for confusing assult, stalking, and threats of rape with a "point of view" that is protected as free speech or by our NPOV policy. Which of the three do you fall into? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean people like MONGO, who, just recently on the evidence page of this case, referred to polite and reasonable questions about his behavior as 'harrassment'? *Dan T.* 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean examples such as what I mentioned above. There are cases where this has happened that ArbCom and the Foundation are aware of - that is my principal concern. My secondary concern is sites that promote or elevate the real risk of such things happening, in which case I think we need some way to reasonably balance between actual risk versus the value of the content or link tin an encyclopedia article. If I thought a link to a Naxi website actually created a serious risk of certain people being killed, or even graveyeards and synagogues vandalized, I would oppose the link - not because I disagree with the views of Nazis but because of the risk of promoting a criminal act. If I felt the risk was negligible (which indeed I think is the case with our current articles on Nazis and Anti-Semites) I would give more weight to the informative value. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And Dan, while I can understand that some editors might really not have known how serious the problem of stalking is for some editors, I hope at this point there is an increased awareness of the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Crying wolf, as MONGO is doing, by labeling legitimate commentary as "stalking" or "harrassment", does not do anything useful towards encouraging people to appreciate the seriousness of true stalking or harrassment. *Dan T.* 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be. But I am not responsible for MONGO, only for myself. And while I admit to feeling frustrated and exacerbated at times, my proposals were good faith efforts to add something constructive to a discussion concerning an obviously complex issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The jig you currently seem to dance to becomes decidedly different when you are slandered and others think it is fine to link to it.--MONGO 18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And a more succinct abandonment of NPV I couldn't imagine. Wikipedia does not cater to any point of view, including that of the justly aggrieved. ShaleZero 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You really do not get it. Saying "All women are whores" is a point of view and NPOV may require us to provide an account of it when relevant. Threatening to rape an editor or member of her family is not a "point of view." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that threat is part of a noteworthy incident, deleting all references to it and the Web site where it originated in order to spare the victim's feelings is editing from a point of view. A sympathetic point of view, but still not by any stretch of the imagination a neutral one. All the more so when we only take that step for Wikipedia users. ShaleZero 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. The encyclopedia's content is not improved or affected directly by including hot links. Hot links are not necessary for supporting citations, and external links do not add content to the project. If links contain offensive material then we can refer to the sites without hot-linking to them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'BADSITES' rewrite of WP:NPA holds that we cannot refer to sites either. The application of this policy to antisocialmedia.net was to remove any mention of the name of the website (from the article about the person who ran it)... not links. That aside, if relevant external links did not add value we would not have over-whelming consensus to include them on articles. This principle directly contradicts that obvious consensus and standard practice and is thus simply false. --CBD 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that content and sourcing can be added without making it google searchable. People reading the article can learn about subject without having Google index it for content that might be defammatory to Wikipedia editors. Also, it will discourage attack sites from generating publicity for itself by exciting Wikipedia editors to write about it byt creating controversy. --DHeyward 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but do not agree. If the New York Times wrote an article which said, "Witnesses report seeing John Smith kill dozens of people." we would not go out of our way to avoid making that Google searchable... ala 'A newspaper headquartered in a northeastern state reported that John Smith caused alot of people to become dead'. The principle of verifiability holds that we should do whatever we can to make it easy for the reader to track back to the original source and verify the information... not to obscure that source. There are different degrees of obfuscation, from listing but not hyperlinking the address (which you seem to be suggesting) up to something more like the above (which others have suggested), but they all go directly against the core principle of making it easy for readers to verify that what is written on Wikipedia is an accurate description of the source material. Maybe, in some cases, listing full web addresses in unlinked form would be a minor enough step back from the principles of 'verifiability', but readers would invariably come along and 'helpfully' convert them to hyperlinks and I can't see the folks who object to even mentioning the names of 'attack sites' accepting inclusion of full web addresses. --CBD 12:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on two grounds. First, when web pages are being cited, the link has to be included, even if it isn't hot; and if the normal template is used, it will be. I don't see this point as negotiable, and in practice, BADSITES has been used against citations as well as external link sections. Second, the invocation of BADSITES is an advertisement that there is "nasty" stuff to be found, if one looks. The line from Huckleberry Finn comes to mind: "Women and children not admitted. If that don’t fetch ’em, I don’t know Arkansas." It's particularly an issue on otherwise innocent sites where most people wouldn't see the attacks anyway unless they sought them out. Mangoe 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, official sites of article subjects should be linked

33) The "What should be linked" section of the External links guideline states: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose as content ruling. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe acceptance of this principle (that, barring exceptional circumstances, one should generally link to the official site of an entity discussed in an article) would mitigate the most disruptive edit wars that have been noted (Michael Moore, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, etc.). The exceptional circumstances mentioned in my parenthetical include the Perverted Justice situation, for example, in which all inbound Wikipedia links were redirected to a particular subpage of the site. JavaTenor 08:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. And even in the PJ situation, a fix was created that involved a redirected link through a third-party site. *Dan T.* 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. This is a true summary of how we operate, and worth noting. --Alecmconroy 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. While this is generally done as a courtesy to the site owner, it is not a core principle of Wikipedia and if it conflicts with our policies, like WP:CIVILITY, then it should be modified. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility is a user conduct policy, not an article policy. Picaroon (t) 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not "generally done as a courtesy to the site owner." It is "generally done" as a vital, irreplaceable, part of the article. The way the person or organization represent themselves on the internet is "generally" no less a vital part of the article about them than their picture; it describes them at least as well as any thousand words can. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, unnecessary. In general they are linked, including in all cited cases. There may be circumstances where they should not be, but the words "in general" add precisely nothing to that since the exceptions are so few and far between. So: not only is this a content ruling, it's also completely unnecessary and would have precisely no effect on any of the disputes in question. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of Arbitration Committee decisions

34) An administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should generally not be subject to sanction for that action, even if his or her interpretation turns out to have been incorrect or not the intended meaning of the decision. Only good-faith, reasonable interpretations of a legitimately ambiguous ruling are covered by this principle; it does not shield strained, unreasonable actions or interpretations, nor actions taken after the prior decision has been clarified by arbitrators or the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wording is brazenly stolen from the Zeq-Zero arbitration workshop (Newyorkbrad is better at wording than I am.) I think the fact that most people in the dispute have been acting in good faith is important to the case. Perhaps someone's interpretation of the MONGO case was wrong, but I cannot say they are patently unreasonable either. That one of the proposed remedies is to send everyone to bed half-an-hour early reflects this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would drop "reasonable" from the language because, a) good faith denotes reasonable, and b) reasonable might be considered subjective. The later language of "unreasonable" is less problematic. LessHeard vanU 13:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Unlikely to resolve anything, since discussion would just shift to whether some action was "reasonable" or not. *Dan T.* 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In the final decision in the Zeq-Zero0000 case, the committee adopted the first sentence of this proposal (the second sentence was probably thought to be understood), and the word "generally" was dropped. Newyorkbrad 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Content about Wikipedia editors are subject to the same rules that govern other WP:BLP content

35) Unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory and/or defammatory information about Wikipedia editors should be removed. Links to unsourced or poorly sourced (i.e. blogs, personal websites) derogatory and/or defammatory information should be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Maybe someone can word it better. --DHeyward 04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the header (and the sentiment) but the text misses the point somewhat. The issue isn't libel and defamation, but harassment. ShaleZero 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles should cover Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians impartially

35a) Wikipedia's policies on the inclusion of verifiable, accurate and appropriate information about living persons in article space apply equally to content concerning users and non-users of the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Another stab at 35; feel free to reword. ShaleZero 04:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support either wording. Further, this seems self-evident under existing policy and to in and of itself provide the user protection for which the 'BADSITES' philosophy was supposedly created. Again, we don't need BADSITES. Any valid application it might be put to is already covered under existing policy. Its impact then can only be in inspiring INvalid uses... of which we now have numerous examples on the evidence page. --CBD 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable. *Dan T.* 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been negligent in informing users about the risks

37) While harrasment is unacceptable, it is inevitable on a website such as Wikipedia that trolls, stalkers and the like will be attracted to the site. Wikipedia should make, and should have made, this fact clearer to editors at the point of sign up. Once these dangers have been made clearer, the default recommendation should be that if users cannot stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 81.132.208.211 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is clearly true. The second has some validity, but the merits of its recommendation are debatable. The third is incorrect and unhelpful. We can, and do, alot more than just telling people, 'if you cannot stand the heat...'. We block the trolls, stalkers, and the like. We report them to the authorities when appropriate. We remove material which is harmful. We can and should continue doing all of those things. --CBD 12:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue doing these things. But people who will break down because of these things still should not be in the position in the first place, for their mental health if nothing else. The best way to prevent that is to make the dangers of contributing to Wikipedia very clear when signing up. 81.132.208.211 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that we can't remove all the material that is harmful, because the greatest risk arises from one's editing patterns. If one dares to edit Marriage, as I once did, one has to resign onesself to having participated in the debate over homosexual marriage. And if one chooses to be come an adminstrator and then edits one of these controversial topics, the potential exists for that person to be identified as a power abuser bent on bending the article to their perspective. This last issue is really at the heart of the battle with WR, because that's the perception that drives a lot of the anger that is poured out in their postings. That a great deal of it is illegitimate is beside the point (and the dismissal of it because many of them were banned is a personal attack). Mangoe 16:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I wrote the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world essay to address some of these concerns. It has seemed to me (based on my long hisroy of internet participation) that a lot of editors don't understand what they could be getting themselves into. Mangoe 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as the above IP (it seems that Durova has decreed that mere readers of Wikipedia, despite being your user base are not allowed to contribute here, so I have to get ahold of an autoconfirmed account - why?) I was thinking of your essay when I made this point. But a user signing up to Wikipedia would not see the essay, only someone who was already deeply involved. Do you think that this is perhaps better taken over to the village pump? Touchmeets 16:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really up to me, I think, to push it forward. I think the warnings it contains are important; but I would rather have other people read it and promote it if they feel the same way. Mangoe 16:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. We should be telling people that there are trolls who may try to harass them. But that doesn't mean that we must then tell them to just accept the trolling. We should do whatever we reasonably can to protect editors from harassment, even if they did know that they might be harassed when they started. -Amarkov moo! 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely an issue behind all of this as to exactly how much influence Wikipedia management really has over this. Throughout this whole controversy there has been a tendency on the pro-BADSITES side to talk as if erasing or smudging these links is an effective defense. Sometimes I suppose it is, if the offenders believe that it is. Sometimes it isn't, as in the ASM.net case. Mangoe 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree, but I'm not sure I like the wording... calling us "negligent" is something the Wikimedia lawyers probably wouldn't like... and the tone is rather negative. Still, it's true that you ought to know what you're getting yourself in for and that you might need a thick skin. *Dan T.* 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial claims about site content need citation

38) When a claim is made about the content of a site, the claim needs to be properly cited, or it may be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability. This applies to all parts of Wikipedia, including talk spaces. Third party reliable sources are acceptable in lieu of direct references; they are subject to checking against the actual site and may be removed if demonstrated to be in error.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This does not address the TNH/Michael Moore/Don Murphy cases in which the problematic material isn't cited or even described in the ordinary references to the site. It is directed at the ASM.net/WR/ED cases in which the allegedly offensive matter is the subject itself. In ASM.net's case we have those reliable sources and don't have to cite the offensive material directly; but in the case of WR a lot of allegations have been tossed around without attempt to support them with evidence. And indeed, the application of BADSITES created a "guilty and can't be proven innocent" climate, because any attempt to present evidence from the site itself was suppressed. This is intolerably against both Wikipedia's core principles and code of proper argument. It also was used to support "guilt by association" attacks on those who spoke in WR's defense. Mangoe 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While I'm not sure I can endorse the general concept that comments in the course of discussion need to be sourced and referenced as stringently as encyclopedia articles, I agree with the general point that it's absurd to put alleged "attack sites" in the position of being judged "evil" and all attempts to prove otherwise are muzzled. *Dan T.* 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This came out a little stronger than I intended; the section title more accurately expresses my intent. I agree that noncontroversial statements in talk pages etc. generally don't have to be cited; but if there is a controversy, I would expect assertions to be backed up by evidence-- that's is, citations. Mangoe 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, what? This is precisely the wrong way round. Secondary sources are absolutely preferred over primary sources, especially when discussing controversy and reactions to something. If there is content which is said by independent reliable sources to be offensive, then we can happily cite the external reliable sources saying just that. If the reliable secondary sources don't make the claim then we shouldn't be including it anyway. So the only time we'd need an attack site for verifiability is probably if we're engaging in original research. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This wild misconstruing of WP:NOR seems to be popping up everywhere, but it is completely wrong-headed. Citation and research are not the same thing. In the case of an article relating a statement, the primary source for that statement is always preferable in citing it, over any other source. It's not a matter of research; it's a matter of accuracy. Mangoe 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors are not representatives

39) Wikipedia as a company can only contact individual people to negotiate content. It is not proper for editors of the project to contact outside sources and make bargains regarding links, content, references etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors should not contact outside sources to barter content, or negotiate, as they do not legally represent the Wikimedia foundation, nor own the content. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not for the reason that seems to be implied here. It's perfectly fine for individual to contact people about this. The problem comes when they make a bargain, and then start saying "well, you can't revert me, because I made a deal that we would do this!" -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but also irrelevant to the case at hand, I believe. Notifying a site owner that there's harassment happening on their property is admirable. Bargaining in the site's name is not, but I'm not remotely convinced that that's what's happened here. Still, it may be a useful caveat for the future; I can easily imagine somebody taking the extra step and saying "links to your site will be deleted from Wikipedia if you don't remove the content," which is an implicit offer of a deal. ShaleZero 04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This appeared to be what happened with the Michael Moore situation. The sites administrator was contacted after the links were removed, of the exact conversation I could not say, however after the direct links were removed to editing the article and the users page, the external links to his site were readded. This is a matter of cutting a deal, something users should not have been permitted to do. Editors here cannot, or so I believe, negotiate, or hold content hostage in exchange for external content decisions. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Without seeing the communications involved, though, we can't and shouldn't say that was the result of a deal. A simple notification of the harassment could still prompt the site to take down the offending material, after which it would be considered safe to re-link. Same result, no dirty dealings. Assume good faith.

Entirely agreed. However should editors be contacting anyone regarding presumed harassment is still an issue. The content is not owned by an editor, its equivalent to me reading a Times article on cocaine dealers and writing to them to state a complaint, that they are harassing cocaine dealers. I have no bearing to do this on behalf of the cocaine dealers, much like editors here really have no right to seek remediation against another target through our venue simply because they happen to edit here. The issue between Moore and THF was an off wiki issue, that was brought here by a public person deciding to edit an article on someone they have an issue with. This really should have been handled offwiki, and Wikipedia should not have been used as a weapon against Moore. Judging by the comments in the AN/I regarding links providing bandwidth and traffic etc. It seems this was an issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. A serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation. We are perfectly entitled to negotiate, see WP:OTRS, although of course we never make promises. I have personally dealt with many tens of article subjects and confidently expect to deal with many more. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood since the case you gave is not what is described above. In those instances of OTRS, content is not being negotiated, and people are not being contacted to negotiate content, negotiate meaning a give and take process as simply put. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. I don't really have a problem with editors contacting people as individuals, not representing anybody but themselves, and trying to see if they can be helpful in smoothing over disputes. However, it should always be clear that people doing such things have no power to "make deals" that constrain anybody else's actions. Trying to get somebody outside to take something off their website in exchange for doing something on Wikipedia (inserting or deleting material, for instance) is probably going to lead to trouble as people who aren't party to the agreement start editing the material again. *Dan T.* 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability requires linking to some otherwise undesirable sites

40) If a website is used as the source for material in Wikipedia, verifiability requires that a link to the content be provided as part of the citation, regardless of other content on the site. This does not authorize removal of content based on the character of the cited material or the site on which it resides.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as the central issue, as I see it. Verifiability is a core principle, and it shouldn't be compromised to lesser policies or guidelines. Note that this doesn't say that the link must be hot; nor would it require, in the overstock.com case, that we link to directly to ASM.net, since we are citing articles about the site and not material on the site itself. This also doesn't address the stray references to (for instance) WR on various user pages; however, it does encompass the expectation that statements about WR content can be required to be backed up by real evidence. Mangoe 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Most attack sites are probably unreliable sources by virtue of their attackiness, but we can't leave things unsourced just because an attack site gave the information. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is provably false. We can cite treeware and that is still rightly considered verifiable; we can cite a website without linking it and that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on verifiability. We often link newspaper articles which turn up 404; this does not render the supported content unverifiable. This is also not the central issue, at least not for the project (it may be to those with an ideological commitment to linking certain attack sites, I wouldn't know). The central issue is misidentification of attack sites, all such misidentification having been corrected but at the cost of some minor disruption. Clarification is therefore required as to what constitutes an attack site. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily an absolute requirement of policy, but a good idea nevertheless. *Dan T.* 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree technically according to our own policies. If the content is web content that is. The difference between an article from a newspaper is that most of them appear in the print version, a citation to the article not only contains a link, but also alternate information that can then be used to cross reference and find the original, an author, date, paper name, article title. For a website, there is not much always to go on except the link, and the name of the page/site. The other difference is the capabilities of retention for a newspaper and publishing of no longer online/in print articles that allows for cross reference, where a website may not employ such capabilities. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, verifiability sometimes requires linking to relevant content on otherwise undesirable sites. LessHeard vanU 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a weapon

41) Off wiki battles involving editors should not involve article content as a means of retaliation or punishment for off wiki actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Being harassed off Wikipedia is not an issue for Wikipedia. Editors here should not seek punishments or reprisal against outside entities for actions taking place off wiki. We are an encyclopedia, we protect the encyclopedia, not the community, and Wikipedia content is not a weapon in off wiki battles. Per WP:BATTLE. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A reasonable corollary of Wikipedia not being a battleground. *Dan T.* 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, not relevant or supported by evidence. First, external links are at best a minor adjunct to content, second, no relevant non-attack sites are currently excluded, third, Wikipedia is not a link exchange.. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I amend it to say "off wiki battles should not involve adjuncts to article content?" Per WP:BATTLE, Wikipedia should not be involved in any manner, in any capacity in off wiki fights. The "no relevant attack sites" is because the goal post keeps moving. Michael Moore went from an attack site, which does not make much sense since it was one entry, to not being one a day later. When a site is an attack site for the duration it takes to see if others will allow the content removal to stick, its no wonder "no relevant ones" are excluded, which is why we are here. Third, your point is irrelevant, since no one claimed it was a link exchange. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a site does not imply that we endorse or support it

42) The fact that we link to something should never be construed or inferred to mean that either Wikipedia as a whole, the individual editor who added the link, or anybody who participates in a discussion over keeping or removing the link, is endorsing or supporting the site, its owner, or the ideas or viewpoints espoused there. Links are to provide additional relevant information to illustrate a point, aid in a reference, provide a source for content or information, or other purposes that do not require agreement with everything that is at the other end of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. *Dan T.* 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, irrelevant, no valid links are currently excluded from article space so endorsement or otherwise is moot. Not linking to attacks in debate is an extension of WP:NPA and is entirely justified and reasonable. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One proposed remedy would blacklist a currently linked site from the encyclopedia (which means it's at the very least arguably valid), on pain of block or ban from the project. This is relevant.

Oh, and support - the fact that Wikipedia does not (I hope!) support in any meaningful way genocide, fundamentalist Islam, white supremacy, black supremacy, Unitarian Universalism, and the Denver Broncos, among the thousands of other organizations and philosophies with sites we link to, makes this principle self-evidently true. ShaleZero 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. I would hate to have my edits in regards to Colombian drug trafficking to be taken as I support them. To oppose this seems like you would be claiming anyone who edits the white supremacy article is a white supremecist. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Attack sites probably shouldn't be linked, but one of the reasons is not that linking to something means we endorse it. -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Needs to be emphasised. LessHeard vanU 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support It would be irrelevant if people would cease removing valid links from articles because they don't like material that isn't even at the other end of the link. But since the fact that they do so is the subject of this case, it's not irrelevant. Mangoe 13:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is a rejected policy/guideline

43) Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is a rejected policy/guideline. Indiscriminately removing personal attacks has been rejected by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed This is an important principle when looking at the big picture. The biggest flameouts have come when someone finds an "attack page" and then indiscriminately removes every link from every Wikipedia page that goes to any page under that TLD. SchmuckyTheCat

Agreed, making sure it is understood that this is only true of indiscriminate removal. -Amarkov moo! 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Must Display Caution Message to Editors

44) Evidence has been provided that Wikipedia editors are subject to: cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without their consent, sexual humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and other negative consequences.

These very serious risks should not be hidden from editors. Wikipedia has a responsibility to make all editors, and especially new editors aware of these dangers. It would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to attempt to hide knowledge of such activities from editors by placing the evidence on pages which are unlikely to be read by most users.

Wikipedia must provide a warning when a user applies for a user name. A user must acknowledge that they are aware of the above risks before the user name is given.

A notice such as: "I recogize that by editing Wikipedia I may be subject to: cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without my consent, sexual humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and other negative consequences"

Wikipedia should also provide a warning of the above dangers upon each attempt by a user to press the "Save Page" button. Uncle uncle uncle 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

An unhelpful suggestion, but users, and especially administrators, need to be aware of the possibilities. Fred Bauder 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed in spirit with the first part, but there is certainly no need for such a message each time a page is edited. At some point, we have to say "We've done enough, it's your problem if you didn't listen". -Amarkov moo! 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - reads too much like a "you promise to sell your soul to Bigcorp in perpituity" clause you'd get in a TOS. Will ^(talk) 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - while, to some extent, I agree with the spirit that editors should be warned of potential risks and expected to take personal responsibility, I don't think scaring them away with worst-case scenarios is the best approach. All this talk of "sexual humiliation", "threats", and the like remind me of the more sensationalist segments of the local TV news during sweeps week (when the TV ratings are calculated so all the stations and networks try to whip people into frenzies to get them to watch)... the ones that say "Are your kids at risk from a new menace that's hiding in your own home? Find out at 11!" *Dan T.* 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The risk is minuscule to casual editors. But, I am soooo tired of people signing up to be admins who do not understand this concept at all. It should be a pre-requisite for RfA. SchmuckyTheCat

Support if the language could be toned down as a disclaimer that stalking or harassment could occur as a consequence of revealing personal info on Wikipedia, as it would on any on-line venue. Months ago I developed a personal security proposal, and sent emails and left messages on Jimbo's talk page to argue that some kind of "personal security disclaimer" on initial log-in pages would be at least as appropriate as the information currently presented on securing passwords, and much more potentially important, as simply being reminded not to reveal personal information on-site could actually save someone's life if serious stalking does occur as a result of absent-minded on-site indiscretions. Jimbo wrote back saying he agreed with the concept, but has not taken action on it as far as I can tell.—AL ^FOCUS! 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

{proposed principle}

45)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) In April 2007, the proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites was created. It was quickly rejected by the community. Later, similar content was added to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, in a section titled external links. This section has been the subject of extensive debate, and various disputes have arised about the applicability of the policy in articles when linking to off-wiki sites that criticise Wikipedians.

1.1) In April 2007, the proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites was created. It was quickly rejected by the community. Later, similar content was added to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, in a section titled external links. This section has been the subject of extensive debate, and various disputes have arised about the applicability of the policy in articles when linking to off-wiki sites that criticise Wikipedians (such as Making Light, Michaelmoore.com, and antisocialmedia.net).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think some of the specific debates - Making Light, Michaelmoore.com, and antisocialmedia.net - need to also be mentioned as loci of the dispute. Phil Sandifer 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This dispute involves antisocialmedia.net and only that Overstock.com corporate smear site. I've never heard of Making Light, and I posted once in favor of including the Michaelmoore.com link. The latter was and is not an "attack site" in any way, shape or form and did not harass a Wikipedia editor as such. It was critical of a lawyer who acknowledged editing on Wikipedia. In any event, I believe that is the subject of a separate arbitration and it has no relationship to this one. The Michaelmoore.com reversion wars were a complex mess in and of themselves and are the subject of a separate arbitration case.[5] --Mantanmoreland 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, could be improved. Melsaran (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"This dispute", as stated in the opening of the case, may have been directly inspired by the Overstock / Antisocialmedia issue, but it's definitely not limited to it; the clear intent and effect is to examine the entire issue of the "BADSITES" pseudo-policy and its relatives, and it should not be narrowed in scope from this. *Dan T.* 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.1 per Phil's suggestion. Melsaran (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

2) The website known as Encyclopedia Dramatica has numerous articles that supposedly identify the real life identities of some Wikipedia editors. Many of these same articles have misleading and/or slanderous accusations that have little or no basis in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, an example of an external attack site which displays moral depravity. (And proud of it). Fred Bauder 13:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If sites other than antisocialmedia are to be discussed, this site should be and not "michaelmoore.com" which is not an "attack site."--Mantanmoreland 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It temporarily attempted, improperly, to influence the content of Wikipedia by attacking an editor in good standing (although his editing was clumsy and inappropriate). This was mostly a matter of not knowing how to influence Wikipedia appropriately. Fred Bauder 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but so far as I've seen, almost nobody actually wants to link to Encyclopedia Dramatica. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

One fish, two fish, red herring, blue fish. ED is a horridly unreliable source, so it would only be accepted as a link in an article about itself. Since the article is most likely not coming back, as shown by multiple deletion reviews, this is really a non-issue. Let's focus on the sites that are actually being revert-warred over and not insert this largely irrelevant finding into the fray. Picaroon (t) 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...I think it is important to reaffirm that this website is still just as despicable as it was a year in a half ago.--MONGO 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is irrelevant here. Melsaran (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant in that it was the canonical example in the original arbitration. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is not relevant to this arbitration. Melsaran (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive or sensible to claim any particular site to be "not relevant" to this case, since this case is attempting to discuss the broad concept of "attack site" links in general, and should hence involve discussion of all the various instances where something has or has not been construed to be such a site. That said, ED is a relatively peripheral instance here, since none of the recent conflicts over site links have actually involved it. *Dan T.* 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, the original cause of the MONGO arbitration principle, which is the thing cited by some here. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They're a "parody" site that has made the editorial decision to aim for tastelessness rather than humor, unlike Uncyclopedia. Its entire style and tone is very immature. For instance, last I checked, its article on Harry Potter focused on films of jerks shouting spoilers at people waiting in line for the last book of the series. That's disgusting... but if we make policy based on a desire to attack those guys for their bad taste, we're dragging ourselves down to their level. *Dan T.* 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just a finding proposal that I think needs to be clarified again. The MONGO arbitration case was about ED and links to it and is the root of why there has been exansion of the argument about linking or not linking to specific websites.--MONGO 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my french, but how the hell is a site that posts the location of a minor to within a mile "parody"? Will ^(talk) 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is currently not a reliable or notable source for anything except (possibly) uncontroversial information about itself... and since it as a whole has been judged not notable there is no article about it for such links to be made on. In short... our existing notability and reliable sources policies already prevent all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica in article space. Our existing personal attacks and harassment policies (before the disputed 'external links' revisions to them) already prevent links to such on Encyclopedia Dramatica in discussions. There is thus no need for any special rules or restrictions. Long established policy already has it covered. As such, enacting special rules only introduces room for 're-interpretation' and changes to our guiding principles and established consensus. If Encyclopedia Dramatica were to eventually become notable in some way (e.g. some nut cited their 'George W. Bush' page as the reason for an assassination attempt) then we should be absolutely free to link to it under the existing policies. Thus, while the above finding is true, IMO it serves only to demonstrate why there has been an emotional backlash and efforts to 'redefine policy' in ways that have resulted in significant ongoing disruption. --CBD 10:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the disruption is caused by those who want to harass our editors by linking to websites that out their real life identities against their will. This issue has forced more than 15 people on this website to cease editing to protect themselves. That is an unacceptable situation.--MONGO 17:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable... and, "that web-site is still just as despicable as it was a year and a half ago" - which is irrelevant. We don't include links to ED in articles because there is absolutely nothing on Wikipedia (that I know of) for which it is a reliable and notable/relevant source. Existing policy... if a link isn't relevant or reliable we don't include it in the article. We don't include links to attacks posted on ED in discussion because it is just as inappropriate as quoting the attacks here - further, since the stuff they go in for is generally egregious it falls into the extremes where 'remove personal attacks' isn't controversial. Existing practice. Absolutely no need for BADSITES to enforce any of that. The simple fact is that adding BADSITES to the mix only prevents the use of links to (or even 'mention of') pages which ARE relevant and reliable and AREN'T attacks on users. That's it. Everything else is already barred by existing policy. The only things BADSITES bans that aren't covered by existing policy are those which would otherwise be entirely appropriate and standard. We do this, as many people have stated in this discussion, because the site as a whole is offensive to some of our users... and I'm sorry MONGO, but with all due respect to your feelings, that is just wrong. Stormfront is bloody well offensive to some of our users too... but we link and refer to it when that is appropriate under our content and discussion policies. You have every right to be disgusted by ED and remove links to it which serve no valid purpose; just as I have every right to be disgusted by Stormfront and to remove a link to some hate screed there posted to attack one of our users... but if a link or mention is valid and appropriate to the article or conversation then removing it diminishes the encyclopedia, and focusing such removals (of valid links/mentions) only on sites specifically offensive to Wikipedians also presents an obvious conflict of interest bias. If some disgusting site like ED somehow becomes notable/relevant, either as a whole or for an individual reference, then we have to include it... no matter how offensive we find them. Not doing so tosses our integrity as an encyclopedia out the window. Your disgust with and wish to completely censor this crap is perfectly understandable and has my sympathy, but as a guiding principle viewed dispassionately it is incorrect. --CBD 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is irrelevant...and I do not support, linking to Stormfront, but that site does not routinely engage in efforts to "out" our contributors...I am not convinced we suffer encyclopedically if alternative sources are located. Much here is being lost in the chatter...the question is...what websites make it a major part of their mission to "out" the real life information about our editors?--MONGO 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it has a lot of slandorous accusations. this should be extended to include that Encyclopedia dramatica contains personal attacks and insulting material (I've seen personal attacks on certain admins there. I won't provide links as a courtesy)--Phoenix 15 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The character of ED is not at issue. Fred Bauder 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

3) The website Wikipedia Review is primarily a blog forum that has some postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors. Some of those who post to Wikipedia Review are editors that have been banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From time to times there are useful policy discussions on Wikipedia Review, but not often. Fred Bauder 13:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For some values of useful, I'd say - a stopped clock is right twice a day, to pretend it is useful one would need to work very hard on a reliable mechanism for identifying just the right moment to look... Individuals who are regulars there, including Kohs, Awbrey and some former editors, have contributed to policy debate on the wikien-l mailing list; some have been booted from that list due to the fact that, as it turns out, their idea of improving Wikipedia is largely restricted to making it easier for them to get their point of view into articles. I don't think there's much doubt that links to WR don't serve to help overmuch within the project, and the downside is pretty serious. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

So? Phil Sandifer 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Actually we could say justlyor properly banned. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And nobody has ever been unjustly or improperly banned from Wikipedia, have they? And if they ever were, they'd have the decency to sit down and shut up about it rather than do something evil like participate in an "attack site" to talk about it. *Dan T.* 20:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WR is a forum where Wikipedia is discussed, generally in a critical manner. Occasionally the criticisms are valid; very often they are unfair and unreasonable. However, Wikipedians are inherently biased on this issue and shouldn't be trusted to objectively determine which is which; there is a value to the existence of an independent site that doesn't run under the same rules as us, ban the same people as us, and let the same clique dominate as us. Is a (justly or unjustly) banned user an "unperson", to be dragged out only for Two Minute Hates and never for consideration of their actual ideas and criticisms? Do we want the next headline about us in Slashdot, or the New York Times, to read "Wikipedia censors criticism of itself"? *Dan T.* 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dan T, you keep bringing the argument of "criticism of Wikipedia", when this arbCom case is not about that. It is about slander against community members for the only reason that they are editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's about the (ab)use of policies governing "slander against community members" in a way that results in the censoring of criticism of Wikipedia itself, as when an entire site or forum engaging in such criticism is declared to be a suppressive person... er, website. *Dan T.* 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. WR is a blog forum that criticises WP as regards perceived violations of WP's principles and general practices by its own contributors; sometimes speculating upon and commenting upon WP editors supposed real life identities in purporting to identify conflicts of interest or other "indiscretions". LessHeard vanU 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ps. Isn't commenting that mostmany WR editors are banned ex-WP editors irrelevant, or does their history provide them with greater reliability?

I did not write "most" I wrote "many". This is just a finding I proposed...and I think for those who are familiar with what gets posted at WR and by whom, it is pretty easy to see that this finding is correct.--MONGO 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've altered the most/many. I think you should clarify your supposed inference that the history of some of the contributors equates a disposition of ill-will toward WP rather than that of being familiar with the procedures and therefore an authority on the workings of this place, if you are determined to keep that part of the proposal. LessHeard vanU 20:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as written, although with reservations that some readers might construe the language to suggest that as an assertion that this is the primary or sole function of WR. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this saying that it is "primarily a blog forum", or "primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real-life identities of Wikipedia contributors"? The former is definitely true, the latter is a lot more controversial. -Amarkov moo! 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as it is a forum and doesnt actually represent the views of any individual or viewpoint. I am baffled as to why the fact that banned users from wikipedia editing there has anything whatsoever to do with wikipedia and it would set a bad precedent were it to do. There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR. We can properly ban users from wikipedia but we cannot censor or in any way try and control their off-site activities merely because they were banned here. Certinaly not all wikipedia reveiwers try to out wikipedians, its a tiny minority on a tiny minority of pages. As a blog it is no good for RS but there is simply no justification for banning it because it contains a tiny number of attacks, and it makes us look completely paranoid and trying to stifle any criticism of wikipedia which is far more damaging to the project. Obviously attack and particularly outing pages from WR should never be linked to, SqueakBox 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. I've been a lurker there for quite some time, and I've seen nothing serious enough for there to be a link ban to that site. ATren 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The statement "Many of those who post to Wikipedia Review are editors that have been properly banned from Wikipedia." is false, as it's clear from discussions on WP:AN/I that a number of long-standing administrators and other members of the community supported discussion of unblocking the user:Poetlister account as not proper. The word "properly" is debatable in any context (because it is inherently POV), and a good number of WR forum users have never been blocked, let alone permabanned. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The loudest voices there oftentimes do come from people who have been banned from here. Regardless, changed "many" to "some".--MONGO 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really change the fundametals: it's a web forum populated at least in part by frustrated POV pushers and grudge-bearers, it has no authority as a site, no editorial policy, no fact-checking process, and is often used as a platform by those whose attampts to promote an agenda have been rebuffed from Wikipedia. It engages in harassment, outing and attacks, and has absolutely no redeeming merit sufficient to overcome that problem and qualify it as a source for anything. Any user who is not banned and has a problem with a Wikipedian's behaviour can bring it up on Wikipedia. Banned users are banned, full stop, we have taken a decision that we don't want to hear what they have to say (especially when it's the same kind of self-serving nonsense that got them banned in the first place). It is a perfect example of a site we should not link without a very good reason indeed. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are users on many forums such as Slashdot[6] who have been banned from Wikipedia. Does that mean we should call Slashdot a BADSITE? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they routinely enaged in efforts to "out" the real life identities of our contributors?--MONGO 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What are we, a mind-control cult or totalitarian regime that needs to excommunicate people and declare them to be unpersons? *Dan T.* 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

oppose It is just a back door way for people who have been banned, or who don't want to make constructive edits at Wikipedia, to remain a presense here. It has no encyclopedic value. Let's not censor them, let's not criminalize them - let them keep their website, where they can say anything they want at any time ... and we will keep ours. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring over external links

4) Websites labeled as "attack sites" by some editors, a label looked on as irrelevant/not grounds for removal in the context of articles by other editors, have been the subject of multiple revert wars. Examples: at Judd Bagley, Overstock.com, at Michael Moore.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The removal of links to harassing material is not subject to revert limitations. As long as the Moore site was engaged in harassment removal of links was appropriate. However, negotiation with the site was also good, and worked. Fred Bauder 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The question I had in the situation was if it was proper for Wikipedia editors to "negotiate" with the Moore site in the first place. The decision to hold traffic bandwidth, and content, hostage in exchange for resolution, seems beyond the scope of what us as editors should be doing. The act if done by anyone should have been handled by the office, whoever they are. Wikipedia editors seemed to be holding the content ransom. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was. One of the things that distinguishes an attack site from a site whose people are just upset and angry is their response to reasonable dialogue, as with this and donmurphy. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review at one point redacted references to Slim Virgin's alleged real name... and this led to absolutely no lessening of the rhetoric about them being an "attack site". *Dan T.* 04:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Opposed. Michael Moore.com has nothing to do with this. It is the subject of a separate arbitration.[7] No editors from the Michael Moore controversy are involved in this, and lumping in that website with antisocialmedia is absurd. Also this omis that reversion of links to antisocialmedia.net was in accordance with WP:NPA. --Mantanmoreland 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Michael Moore.com has nothing to do with this." It was removed citing a concern that it was an attack site. I think that's what this case is all about. "It is the subject of a separate arbitration." Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed_decision - that proposed decision seems to barely address the attack site issue. Its mostly about THF and DavidShankBone's conduct. "No editors from the Michael Moore controversy are involved in this." What happened to MONGO? He seems pretty involved. "[L]umping in that website with antisocialmedia is absurd". How so? They're both attack sites, aren't they? Picaroon (t) 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged attack sites, that is. *Dan T.* 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm sure there have been more; what was KamrynMatika blocked for again? Wasn't one of these. Picaroon (t) 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A WR link in the Essjay controversy article. Zurishaddai 05:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See the evidence page, where I've posted more details on that case (and some other cases). *Dan T.* 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This case is about the general concept of "attack sites" and the varying beliefs about how policy applies to them; it is not and should not be limited to one particular case, since the original MONGO ruling (though originally intended to be limited to one particular case) has subsequently been cited and applied as if it were a more general rule. *Dan T.* 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative endorsement - I'll agree with the premise that this has some overlap with the Michael Moore controversy. Part of this case's function is to determine how far the concept of an attack site extends. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is only one part of the issue. I just find it concerning that multiple longstanding editors editwarred on multiple articles, each side citing a conflicting policy. One of which is a pillar and a foundation issue, the other of which has the relevant section based on an arbitration committee decision. Picaroon (t) 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope that part of this case is to conclude that 'determining how far the concept of an attack site extends' is an un-needed and un-wanted goal. Ditch the concept entirely, look at whether linked pages violate Wikipedia's long-standing policies, and we're done. Labeling something an 'attack site', by whatever standards, and creating special rules for such gives the appearance of bias (especially when the 'attack sites' are all critical of Wikipedia) and inherently introduces conflicts between our normal practices in regards to reliability, notability, et cetera and the special restrictions for 'attack sites'. --CBD 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites should be subject to 3rr and other edit warring restrictions, reverting linking to specific attack pages should not be subject to edit warring restrictions, SqueakBox 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of references to antisocialmedia.net

5) References to antisocialmedia.net were removed from Overstock.com and Judd Bagley as mandated by the explicit language of WP:NPA, which states: "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning."[8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Acceptable Fred Bauder 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This was the basis for removal of the references to ASM.--Mantanmoreland 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not true on its face, since the reference (though unlinked) to the site is there now. *Dan T.* 14:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's correct that there were further reversions. However, this finding would just deal with the basis for removal of the references. --Mantanmoreland 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed the reasoning used to remove the link. Phil Sandifer 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

5.1) References to antisocialmedia.net were removed from Overstock.com and Judd Bagley as the site contains substantial attack content and is not a reliable source for any encyclopaedic content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

RS didn't factor into this as I understand it - asm was never used as a source in either article. Phil Sandifer 15:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a factor. A good proposal.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-iterate my objection to this proposal - would someone please indicate anywhere on the Bagley or Overstock.com articles where the inclusion of the website name was discussed in terms of sourcing? Phil Sandifer 01:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative. I don't see any proof that NPA is being applied to article space, the link is simply junk. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Determining whether a link is junk is a content dispute, out of the jurisdiction of ArbCom and not to be based on subjective feelings about whom the link attacks. *Dan T.* 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom can distinguish between a website with a legitimate purpose and corporate-underwritten junk.--Mantanmoreland 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But that would be irrelevant to any issue that it is proper for them to decide. *Dan T.* 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, linking to 'corporate underwritten junk' often IS a 'legitimate purpose'... see the links to such on the articles for every major corporation on the planet. As to the site 'not being a reliable source for any encyclopedic content'... It is certainly a reliable source for the nature of its own contents, which is precisely what it was being used for. The connection of that content with Overstock.com and Judd Bagley was certainly relevant, notable, and could be reliably sourced... thus, the only reason these links were removed, as stated at the time (and in your original proposal above), was the disputed wording which had been added to WP:NPA. Itself just a recasting of the rejected BADSITES proposal. --CBD 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Links were never an issue, as they were never added to either article. The only editor, as far as I can see, who has added a link to antisocialmedia and hence to personal attacks on your fellow editors is yourself, by adding a link to antisocialmedia in this discussion. As for "junk" links, they are removed all the time, and WP:EL lists numerous varieties of junk that has to be removed. To argue that Wikipedia is less neutral by not being a garbage dump is just nonsense. --Mantanmoreland 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that you no longer argue that simply referring to a web site's name should be subject to the same restrictions as linking to it? I converted the HTML addresses being discussed to links simply as a matter of habit, but I'd also assumed that the issue was dead and gone since the site is now referenced in the article and repeatedly on this page - by yourself amongst others. You had claimed that both should be equally banned, but now seem to object only to the links. As to 'garbage'... IMO Stormfront is 'garbage', but I'd oppose efforts to censor that too. NPOV. You think it is garbage. I think it is garbage. Wikipedia presents it without judgment because it is notable. --CBD 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

antisocialmedia.net

6) Antisocialmedia.net is a website that engages in sharp personal attacks on critics and perceived adversaries of Overstock.com and its CEO, Patrick Byrne. Its targets range from members of the media to private citizens posting on Internet message boards. Among the principal activities of the site are attacks upon and efforts to "out" and disparage individual Wikipedia editors and administrators. The site was initially anonymous, but newspapers and blogs revealed that it was operated by Judd Bagley, an executive of Overstock. Bagley now admits to running the site, and he and Byrne deny an official connection between the site and Overstock.com. The site has received extensive unfavorable press coverage, with Bloomberg referring to the site's "creepy strategy" and other critics characterizing Bagley in the New York Times as "nauseating" and "Sleazy McSleaze." Bagley had also on previous occasions not connected with overstock.com created other similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" in mainstream investment media.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Way too detailed. The problem is sustained harassment. Fred Bauder 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See 6.1 below.--Mantanmoreland 16:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is largely adapted from the Wiki article on Overstock.com.[9]--Mantanmoreland 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So? The issue under debate is not whether Mr. Bagley or Mr. Byrne are naughty or nice. It's whether it makes any sense to impose link bans regarding sites that may be of some relevance to an issue under discussion, and I think banning links would be a bad idea even if Osama bin Laden ran the site in question in cooperation with Hitler's brain in a jar. *Dan T.* 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As a finding of fact, this is an accurate characterisation of ASM. It does rather invite the response "And?..." though. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

... and that's the website that is at issue. It is not Mother Goose.com or Michaelmoore.com but an astroturfing site. The odious content of the site puts it in a class by itself. If other sites are dealt with, the ArbCom, in my view, needs to differentiate between them and ASM.--Mantanmoreland 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A class by itself? It's more "odious" than Stormfront? We link to odious websites. Always have, and hopefully always will. We're an encyclopedia, not the morals police. How 'odious' some may find a website to be is irrelevant... and the ArbCom absolutely should not "differentiate" on that basis. Wikipedia doesn't make judgments about what to include or not based on how 'odious' our users find it. If something is notable it is included. Otherwise it isn't. BADSITES and its progeny arguing that there should be a different scale for 'odious' material is a blatant violation of our bedrock NPOV directive. --CBD 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does stormfront "out" the real life identities of our contributors?--MONGO 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. We all recognize that if a site like the Stormfront is notable, we should link to their organizational page-- even if that organization supports racism and genocide. If the Westboro Baptist Church is notable, we link to their organizational page, even if they scream "God Hates Fags". But you'd have us believe that Michael Moore should be banned for hate speech if he criticizes one of our editors by name? --Alecmconroy 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about hate speech...This is not an all or nothing issue...some websites that actively and routinely engage in the efforts to identify the real life identities of our editors have no basis ot be linked to. Harassing people for removing links to such websites is ridiculous....these websites are generally only blog forums anyway, and the need to link to them is almost never necessary. It is odd the way people are misconstruing the differences between efforts to "out" our editors and websites that routinely engage in attacking groups but do not routinely engage in outting efforts.--MONGO 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the difference? Hate groups routinely harass people they disagree with (or just hate irrationally), and it's not like they're unique. Did we remove all links to Michelle Malkin's site from the encyclopedia when she posted the names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers of college students who had protested military recruitment on their campus? It was clearly harassment - they got death threats as a result - but not only did the link to her site remain, Michelle Malkin currently includes a link to that specific post, still complete with names, addresses and telephone numbers. How is that any different from linking to the "outing" of Wikipedia authors? If the only difference is that one group has Wikipedia accounts and the other does not, how can you square that with NPOV? ShaleZero 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the links on that article "outting" our contributor's real life identities? If so, then I support removing the offensive link(s). If Michelle Malkin is attacking people but does not say, ie...MONGO is actually Mongo T. Jones...he lives at ....and his phone number is....and his email address is....The difference is we cannot control what any other website does, but we can control linking to them if they are routinely engaged in outting efforts on our contributors.--MONGO 05:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask again. What is the substantive difference between posting the name, address and contact information of a person with intent to harass, and posting the name, address and contact information of a person who happens to be a Wikipedia contributor with intent to harass? Maybe you'll enlighten me, but I can't see how NPOV allows us to link to one and purge all reference to the other like it's on fire. Both are harassment, and both are beyond our control (just as we can't make Malkin's harassment cease to exist by deleting the link, just because we don't link to a Wikipedian's outing doesn't mean it never happened, or that the site isn't still there and accessible to people who would care enough to look.) ShaleZero 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We have editorial control over our website and an obligation to our contributors to not link to anything that outs them against their wishes.--MONGO 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But the outings are not occuring on our Web site. We cannot erase them from the Internet by deleting links. As to the obligation, you're begging the question. I asked for a reason to change the content of the encyclopedia to protect editors from harassment when we don't do it for anyone else, and you said it's because we should protect editors. Tell me why they're special.

Also, one of us should probably reset the tabs soon. ShaleZero 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Stormfront has had message threads dealing with a purported "Jewish conspiracy" on Wikipedia and the need to defeat it... if they didn't "out" any Wikipedians in those threads, it's not likely from lack of desire or inclination, or out of any sort of moral scruples. Not that I make a habit of checking out that site, but I think somebody once linked to such a thread in the course of discussion either here or on wikien-l... making people aware of the stuff that's going on pertaining to Wikipedia, including on "hate sites", is in my opinion a perfectly valid reason to link to them. *Dan T.* 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an essential finding of fact, given that this case resolves around ASM. It is not a Unified Field Theory of Website Odiousness. If you wish to list all the websites that are less odious than ASM, go ahead but it has no relevancy at all to this discussion.--Mantanmoreland 14:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[trolling removed]

I'll echo that; I also fail to see what's so uniquely evil about that site. Annoying, certainly, if you're one of the ones targeted by it, but does it really deserve to be the subject of Orwellian Two Minute Hates, and make its author into the new Official Arch-Enemy of Wikipedia, supplanting other contenders like Daniel Brandt? Why? *Dan T.* 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

6.1 Antisocialmedia.net is a website run by Judd Bagley, an executive of Overstock.com. The site attacks and seeks to silence and intimidate a wide variety of targets. The site and Bagley, acting through numerous sockpuppets, have systematically attacked, stalked and harassed Wikipedia editors. The site contains large sections devoted to harassing Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as possible alternative.--Mantanmoreland 16:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment: Since two wrongs don't make a right, even if this is entirely true it is no excuse to attack, seek to silence or intimidate that site and people who support it. *Dan T.* 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again the emotive language. Not wanting to have anything to do with them is not silencing them, still less intimidating. Ignoring such idiocy is perfectly reasonable. You appear to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a free-speech zone. It is not. It never was, and I sincerely hope it never will be. We routinely block and revert trolls, and I'm glad we do. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the website becomes notable, which I believe it did have an article, then a link to it should be given. Why you ask? Because it is that case for every other article on the encyclopedia. Why not? Seems to be because certain editors think their problems with off wiki sites are Wikipedias problem, and some feel its their cause to help defend them. Wikipedia should not be taking sides. Editors do not know the full history, they do not know what happens off wiki. They did not sit down and speak with the other party, its obviously pretty ignorant to think any "harassment" was not baited, asked for, etc. What we cannot investigate, we should not be taking sides in. This is not an extended front for those who have been harassed off wiki. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The "emotive language" is merely echoing the identically emotive language emanating from the other side. It's interesting to note that an early version of the NPA policy explicitly barred "calling people trolls" as a personal attack. We've clearly changed since then, and not necessarily always for the better. *Dan T.* 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore

7) Useful encyclopedic content was deleted from the Michael Moore article when Moore's site criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the content was ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An invitation to edit a Wikipedia user's user page is harassment, and while that invitation was on the main page of Moore's site linking to it was inappropriate. Fred Bauder 13:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in your scheme of things, NPOV and WP:V should be suspended when dealing with individuals or instituations who harass Wikipedians? Or are we to believe that Moore's notable site suddenly became unnotable the second he had a dispute with THF? --Alecmconroy 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the argument made was a link was also provided to edit his article. If he believes THF was doing harm to the article and providing links were done to provide harassment, he would be telling people to destroy his article as well. When providing links to anything on Wikipedia we cannot assume why they would, or what the result would be. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Alecmconroy 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I should note that, at least at the time when the name and picture of the Wikipedian were there, the site did meet the technical requirements of the pseudo-policy in question, so if applying the policy in such a case leads to absurd results, then the policy itself is absurd. *Dan T.* 20:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no "useful encyclopaedic content" was removed. A valid supporting external link, however, was removed. Please try to maintain a distinction between advocacy and stating the facts. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misused the terminology. How is a valid supporting link that is part of the article page not considered encyclopedia content? --Alecmconroy 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:EL. Links exist to support encyclopaedic content by offering additional information which is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

8) Useful encyclopedic content was deleted from the Teresa Nielsen Hayden article when a forum administered by Hayden criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the content was ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd like to see some details on this. Fred Bauder 13:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We are unlikely to consider this matter in this case. Fred Bauder 12:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

--Alecmconroy 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And there was yet another attempt by a different editor to remove the site a few months later after a nasty comment posting (that got "disemvowelled" by the site owner) in a different thread. *Dan T.* 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Useful encyclopaedic content? Or a valid supporting external link? There's quite a difference. I think it was just a link. Not such a huge big deal, regardless of the merits of removal. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record: many of the links that were erased were citations, and thus useful if not obligatory. Mangoe 13:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The locus of the dispute was not criticism, but rather crude personal remarks and the posting a pseudononymous editor's purported real name. While some useful links were removed as part of the dispute, inspection of the links to the blog shows that many of them were inappropriate per WP:RS to begin with. Further, links are not content. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the evidence shows Attack Sites cited to justify the the removals, not RS. --Alecmconroy 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, but most of the contested links should not have been here to begin with so including their removal as exampes of harming the project is incorrect. Also, this point is improperly framed: the issue is links to Making Light, not links from Teresa Nielsen Hayden. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how links are not considered "content." They are there to help our readers locate more information about the topic in a complete manner. They are certainly part of the content offered by Wikipedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

8.1) Citations referring to a website administered by Theresa Nielsen Hayden (as well as the external link from her article) were removed when a blog comment criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the citations and links were ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Propose as a more accurate version, as cited in the evidence section. It was not just external links that were affected; citations in many articles were smudged or removed. Mangoe 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Still inaccurate. See below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

8.2) Links, including citations, to the blog Making Light were removed following discovery of a thread there that attacked and outed a Wikipedia editor. A short revert war followed and the links were restored immediately. The blog owner subsequently redacted the outing post.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The preceding are inaccurate accounts of the incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This simply isn't an accurate characterization of the thread in question [10]. The thread began with a complaint about the {{tone}} tag stuck on the Kibo article. It gradually expanded in the comments to a general complaint session about Wikipedia, leading up to a long "rant" (her word) in the 89th comment, in which among other things she complained about "the frustration of being followed around Wikipedia and harassed by a [bad name]" whom she named, and who is one of the contributors to this page. Another fifty comments later, she dropped in a very brief comment linking to the ED page on the same person. Another 230 comments followed, including a couple by myself trying to explain some of the dynamics between WR and Wikipedia. It might be accurate to characterize the thread as originating from an "attack" on Wikipedia, if one interprets the word extremely broadly. But I would characterize the first post naming the aggrieved party as simply part of a long-running dispute between the aggrieved party and TNH over editing practices on Wikipedia (for instance, it can be traced as far back as July 2006 [11]) and a complaint from TNH that the other party had been wikistalking her edits. I would tend to characterize the 8.2 version above as being as much of an attack as the various Making Light threads; at any rate it is simply a part of the continuing struggle there. Mangoe 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The thread in question contained material now omitted. I didn't realize that Mangoe was a participant in that thread. I appreciate the disclosure, but it calls into question the objectivity of that editor on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be casting any stones over objectivity, if I were you. --Alecmconroy 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Must I point out who she named as the "[bad name]"? Also, there are about 370 comments to the post in question, never mind the older post I cited above. I defy anyone who has not kept a copy of the original state of the post (rather difficult, considering how it was extended) to characterize the way in which it was edited after the fact. It's clear from reading the last few comments that something was deleted there, but while I recall that some negative comments directed at you were deleted, there is ample documentation of the feud remaining. Mangoe 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never hidden my involvement in the matter. I was not aware that so many Wikipedia editors think it's acceptable to call other editors names, or to repeat those derogatory names here. May I ask what name Mangoe used in the Making Light thread? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You can ask, but under the circumstances you should not expect an answer. And if you have previously stated in the context of this case that you were the aggrieved party, I missed it; and searching for your name on this page turns up no evidence to the contrary that I see. However, I have smudged the specific epithet as a courtesy. At any rate, there is still the reality that the threads in question relate to a (then) ongoing conflict between you and her. I don't think she was very polite about it, but it isn't up to us to police their speech. Mangoe 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You believe it's OK to participate in outing Wikipedia editors, in calling them names, and yet you refuse to say exactly what your involvement is in the matter? You insist that we must link to that site in which you are a participant, but you won't say which participant you are? It wasn't TNH who originally posted (what was presumed to be) my name - it was some other blog poster. It could easily have been you. Excuse me, but I find your position to be extremely hypocritical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

9) Useful encyclopedic content was deleted from the Don Murphy article when a forum administered by Murphy criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the content was ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Alecmconroy 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I should note that the site does meet the technical requirements of the pseudo-policy in question just as much as other "attack sites", given that his message board carries grudges against Wikipedia, tries to "out" editors, and has apparently led to real harrassment. But apparently the policy is really only intended to be applied to sites that have offended members of the "Clique", not normal editors. *Dan T.* 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Three things: first, it wasn't "useful encyclopaedic content", it was a valid supporting external link, a different matter. Second, it didn't just criticise the editor, as I understand it, it printed his name, phone number and home address - that's certainly what they did to me. Third, this is not an "attack site". This is actually the principle that needs clearing up: the essential difference between a site which is a reliable source for encyclopaedic content but contains some elements of a dispute taken to excess, and a site which sets out to harass, attack and out Wikipedia editors repeatedly and without being a reliable source for content. It's a question of where to draw the line. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: when I asked, Don Murphy removed my details from his message boards. What are the chances of ED or WR removing their content about me if I ask? Guy (Help!) 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. A site's response to your requests does not affect it's notability. DonMurphy did not become more notable by his deletion, WR does not become less notable its failure to delete. To jude a site's notability based on their content about you, or other wikipedians, is a conflict of interest. --Alecmconroy 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, completely relevant. An attack site would not remove the attack in response to a polite request. This clearly shows that (as editorial consensus agrees) Don Murphy's site is not an attack site. A case of mistaken identity. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And if he hadn't removed the attack? The what? Would the site that was notable on monday have ceased to be notable on tuesay? Or would you have supported the removal of a notable source from the encyclopedia? --Alecmconroy 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For what was it a source? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is, donmurphy.net is not an attack site. It was mistakenly identified as such, but it is not an attack site. One side in this dispute seems to be strongly opposed to defining attack sites in the way most of us would understand the term, with the apparent aim fo then asserting that sites like donmurphy.net are attack sites, and then saying that they should be linked, and thus proving that atack sites should be linked. But donmurphy.net is not an attack site, and would not be an attac site even if they had not responded to a reasonable request, because an attack site ios a site which habitually harasses and outs editors - donmurphy.net does not habitually do this. The history of Murphy's OTRS tickets shows that he is upset and angry, and reacted inappropriately, but his site never was an attack site by any rational definition. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the link to DM's official site (not his forum) shopuld be retained (as one of those whom they attempted to out on that forum), SqueakBox 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you have email contact with Don, others dont and I have no idea how to remove the (admittedly pathetic) attempts to out me (which showed Don's level of computing skills more than anything else) and his rather crass insults toweards me. I dont support these sites being blocked from wikipedia but for you to claim that its easy to get Don to remove attacks and outing attempts whereas its not so with WR is clearly not backed u[p by a scrap of real evidence. Please do not confuse yourself with wikipedians in general unless you have evidence to back your assertions, SqueakBox 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that there are several people, on both sides of the dispute, who have at some point been attacked by the sites in question... I'm another, having been included on Brandt's Hive Mind and Merkey's MerkeyLaw at various times. People's reactions to this seem to vary enormously; I just laughed at it myself, and even had links to those sites at one point on my user page to show the silly stuff being said about me. *Dan T.* 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the (apparent) name, address, and phone number of a teenage Wikipedia editor is displayed near the top of a forum linked directly off the main page. Until that link is removed, I don't see how this can be classified differently than other sites that engage in such activities. ATren 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think your math is a bit off. The person in question appears to be in his early 20s. Mangoe 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the editor I'm referring to is 17. ATren 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good faith questions raised

10) Good faith questions have, at times, been raised about editors' conduct based on evidence brought up at attack sites. In the past, controversy has arisen as people, also in good faith, remove links to the evidence under policies against attack sites. As our policy on personal attacks applies to bad faith edits only, these removals were inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Evidence?" Or "allegations?" Remember, this was sparked by an evidence-free assertion which is not only complete bollocks, it's also being presented solely in order to try to gain advantage in a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in the case I'm thinking of - have a look at my evidence section. I wrote this proposal with some deliberate sketchiness out of respect for people's privacy. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppressing evidence or allegations, valid or not, in such cases only promotes the impression that there's an "untouchable clique" who are immune to any challenge of their behavior, while they are free to make any accusations they want (many of which also prove unfounded) against less-favored editors. *Dan T.* 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you are envisioning a practice of only restricting links to sites which endanger our users and would seldom, if ever, need to be used. This is a reasonable ideal, but IMO has no attainable implementation. You apparently didn't know about the 'we are not subject to 3RR' codicil which has been written into WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:3RR (possibly others). You suggested that the Michael Moore thing was an aberration quickly resolved... but in fact it was widely pushed for several days. You say it isn't about censorship... but time and again it has been a case of users removing links to sites they don't like. As actually used this is not the practice you describe it to be... and I don't think it ever could be. It's too subjective, too open to 'interpretation', and contains an inherent contradiction of core principles. We need to protect our users, yes... but we've always had ways of doing that - granted, they sometimes worked just as poorly as this does, but without all the other baggage. --CBD 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Michael Moore issue was quickly resolved when the webmaster there took down the direct links to Wikipedia on this website, which linked right into open pages, that was bascially an open invitation to vandalize. Websites like ED and WR have been engaged in a longstanding effort to harass our editors by trying to identify the real life identities of some of us...against some of our editor's wishes.--MONGO 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Had Michael Moore left the website unchanged, do you think it would have been appropriate to continue to remove links under BADSITES/NPA/MONGO until such time as his site did remove its controversial content? --Alecmconroy 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wider consensus was needed

11) The policy that links to attack sites should be removed, and that such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule runs counter to a number of long-standing community decisions. Before altering these policies in such a dramatic way, editors should have sought a wider consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence and principle I'll add above in a moment. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What policy? I'm not aware of anyone asserting as policy that removal of attack sites in article space is immune from 3RR, but please point out which "long-standing community policy" mitigates against removal of links which harass, defame or out Wikipedia editors. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The rejection of WP:RPA. But you're right - decisions is a better phrase here. And look at WP:NPA - it explicitly says "these removals are not subject to the 3RR." Phil Sandifer 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And look at the evidence page for many cases where link removal was intended, and look at the edit summaries in the ensuing edit wars; there are several comments to the effect that "I'll keep removing this forever, and 3RR doesn't apply to me!" *Dan T.* 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't make it so. Of course, not edit warring about offensive content, and discussing it instead until consensus to restore is evident, was also an option. There is no deadline, after all, and it is only an external link, not actual content still less an article. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Every straw poll I've ever seen on a "BADSITES"-related issue has come out overwhelmingly in the no-censorship direction, but the supporting clique has labored mightily to prevent any true show of consensus from developing on the issue, since they know they'll lose that way. Instead, they do lots of hand-waving about how they're just supporting "common sense" and "decent behavior", and, besides, the ArbCom has ruled so consensus doesn't matter, nyahh nyahh nyahh! *Dan T.* 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on the basis that allegations of "supporting clique" are weighted against "claims of consensus". This is not the way to discuss this matter, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of NPA to include content issues was inappropriate

12) The intended alteration of WP:NPA to restrict article content was made without consideration of a number of policies, including WP:NPOV, which is listed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a non-negotiable policy, as well as without regard for the basic goal of the project to provide all significant information on encyclopedic subjects. This expansion of the policy was inappropriate and against the larger spirit of our policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'll add evidence for this one probably tomorrow evening. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. *Dan T.* 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Applying NPA to articles is not compatible with NPOV. --Alecmconroy 19:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. It's not content, it's external links. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support and Guy, external links dont contain content other than their captions, SqueakBox 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed Someone needs to explain how, exactly, a personal attack is required for NPOV and how removing it would violate NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose NPOV does not ask for harassment of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Application of NPA within articles constrains NPOV where links to an off-wiki site is disallowed for containing personal attacks as well as encyclopedia relevant material. LessHeard vanU 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites in content

13) No examples have been advanced of sites which are, by consensus, both attack sites and reliable sources and therefore appropriate to link in articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely oppose. This repeats the toxic premise that some sources are necessarily reliable or unreliable, when in fact reliability comes from context. Phil Sandifer 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a finding of fact, not a principle. As a finding of fact, please list the sites which have been identified in evidence which are (a) attack sites, as most of us would understand that, and (b) reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as the Clique members are free to rejigger the definitions of both "attack site" and "reliable source" every time a potential counterexample comes along. *Dan T.* 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise. You won't find a site which is not a reliable source for its own content, if nothing else. Most things which have been labeled 'attack sites' are not notable enough for their content to be relevant, but there have been several which arguably were and a few that unquestionably qualified. The purging of all links to Michael Moore's blog is the most obvious case, but there are others. Essjay's identity was reported in major newspapers all over the world (thankfully no one has taken that as grounds to ban them all as attack sites), but the revelation of this information to the world media came out of discussions on Wikipedia Review. That's a notable fact still included in the article... but a user linking to a reliable source (the Wikipedia Review thread itself) for that fact was reverted, threatened, blocked, and left in disgust. That was a reliable source for the information. It was notable and relevant to the topic. It revealed nothing more than was being trumpeted from the pages of The New York Times. Yet a good user was driven from the project solely because too many people put the desire to censor Wikipedia Review, and yes it absolutely is censorship, over building an impartial encyclopedia. That page was relevant, notable, and a reliable source for the information... but because it existed on a site which had been 'labeled' it was verboten. Declaring sites unusable, regardless of how 'bad' they may be, inherently handcuffs editors and damages the neutrality of the encyclopedia. It's a bad practice. The goal of protecting editors is a good one, but this method of pursuing that goal is ineffective, rife for abuse, and itself detrimental. --CBD 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My blog is a reliable source in an article about me or my company, and if I have a Ph.D in a subject, it may be a reliable source on that; it still won't be a reliable source on Albanian politics. Reliability depends on why the site is being sourced. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your blog is not an attack site. See my response to Phil above. Note that this is a finding of fact, not a principle. As a finding of fact, no sites have been identified which are both attack sites and reliable sources for content. Feel free to point out the ones I have missed. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just that this, as worded, that there is a quality called "reliability" which can be measured out of context. I have no objection to the intent, just the way it's worded. -Amarkov moo! 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see how any of the purported attacks sites would qualify as reliable sources except in very limited circumstances. They have all been either self-published sites that we simply link to from articles on their owners as a courtesy. Links to blogs, forums, or open wikis are not vital to Wikipedia, and are routinely removed from most articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as a red herring The fact is that a great many of the existing links to the offending sites do treat them as reliable sources-- of their own content. 20% of existing links to WR.com, for example, are in an ArbCom case, where they were presumably used to cite specific statements made on that site. Indeed, in the initial argument BADSITES was used to suppress citations of evidence to refute unsubstantiated claims made about the site. (Something else to add to the evidence page....) And with ASM.net, the problem is that reliable sources cite it as an attack site. Mangoe 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant on two levels. First, it's a circular argument - citing WR threads that are not attacks as a way of proving that WR is not an attack site is ignoring the many threads which are attacks. Second, that's in meta-debate, not in content. This addresses the narrow point that no such examples have been provided. Dan and others want to be able to link attack sites as a point of principle, and use as an argument supporting that the fact that some sites were mistakenly unlinked from articles, but nobody has yet provided an example of site which might justly be called an attack site which is a valid source for use in an article. The argument that one day there might be one is not a good reason for pre-emotively finding that it would be fine to link it if there was. It would be an editorial judgement on the day. Guy (Help!) 06:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, your depiction of the way the argument went way back when is inaccurate, and ironically so. What MONGO (and a couple of others) said was that they couldn't imagine why anyone would want to link to WR, because there wasn't anything good on it. That led straight into a catch-22 because the claim that the site was worthless was being used to prevent anyone from presenting any evidence that it wan't worthless.

Potentially WR and ED are very different sites; the latter is simply a collection of attacks on various people, while the former is supposed to be a forum for discussing the shortcomings of Wikipedia. All of us agree that it is a very undisciplined forum, and that discussions there do tend to collapse into character assasination or simple raving. The implication of your identification of it as an attack site is that this lack of discipline is a blockable offense. I'm not inclined to agree, but in any case this is the same principle functioning in the other cases. TNH's website got censored as an attack site because she didn't discipline the comments to Will Beback's satisfaction; given that some of the offending material is still/again there, it might be so condemned again. One of the persistent issues is that "attack site" isn't being defined by form, but by the presence of one specific type of content. That's the way it was stated in the MONGO decision, and that is the way it is being applied to a bunch of websites of highly varied nature. If we could get the MONGO definition vacated and replaced by something more accurate, it would go a long way-- if not most of the way-- towards resolving this issue. But as it stands, the decision can be used against any sort of site, if it identifies an editor.

And I don't see that the distinction between meta and article space is that relevant, especially since the problem moves back and forth between them easily. People making claims about site content are obligated to cite it if challenged, no matter where the claim appears. That is all. Mangoe 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. A flawed premise. CBD said it best, above: attempting to protect Wikipedia contributors is a lofty and compassionate goal. However, when that goal comes at the expense of driving off other good-faith contributors (such as what happened during the Essjay debacle), there is a problem. WR may not be a reliable source for many things, but it is a reliable source for the fact that this information was discussed/revealed on WR prior to being released to the international press. From Essjay scandal: "11 January 2007: At Wikipedia Review a user posts a link to Essjay's Wikia userpage. Daniel Brandt sees the update, investigates further, and later contacts The New Yorker". "26 February 2007: The New Yorker publishes the correction for its March 5 issue, which appears in its The Mail section of its print version. It is picked up by online sources within the next day." The black-and-white mentality that something is inherently unreliable on everything is something that should be avoided (nothing is ever all black or all white). Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment "...consensus..." for a site which is both an "...attack site and reliable source..." (my bolding)? Consensus between whom? LessHeard vanU 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are never "attack sites"

13b) No examples have been advanced of reliable sources which, by consensus, should be removed because of their attacks or outings of Wikipedia Editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Variant wording of 11. That all the purported "attack sites" which are notable/reliable have been added back in by consensus seems to me to suggest that there is a consensus against the practice of removing otherise useful links-- even if they do attack wikipedians. --Alecmconroy 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all a matter of self-serving definitions... start by deciding whether you want the link to stay or go away based on personal, subjective feelings, then twiddle around the policy definitions and their interpretations until you can claim they support whatever you decide. *Dan T.* 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. It doesn't take mental calisthenics to agree with this. Durova^Charge! 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose this because most of the instances presented are not reliable sources to begin with. They are forums, blogs, or other self-published sources that are aonly allowed in special circumstances. I would support the inverse proposition: Sites which include attacks on Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Title is bad. We have yet to see a reliable source which is an attack site, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that if they did we would necessarily choose to link to them. It would very much depend on how reliable, for what, what other sources exist, how bad the attacks are, on whom, and whether the attacks are in themselves notable or authoritative. It would be very foolish to endorse the idea that reliable sources are never attack sites in the absence of substantial supporting evidence for it. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"we have yet to see a reliable source which is an attack site, but that doesn't mean they don't exist". Thank you. That was what I was hoping to help you see when I introduced this wording. OF course, if you ask me, MichaelMoore, MakingLight and DonMurphy all qualified as "outing sites" and therefore "attack sites" under MONGO. But even under the mistaken indentification theory, we have to assume that there reliable sources in the future that will be accused of being attack sites. NPOV will demand our editors be allowed to include them as reliable sources. MONGO/BADSITES/NPA will demand that we never be allowed to include any such reliable sources. --Alecmconroy 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The link-banning crowd will inevitably keep moving the goalposts around so as to make self-fulfilling the concept that "attack sites are not reliable sources". In some of the past cases, they first supported the link deletions, and claimed the sites in question not to be reliable or necessary; then, when they lost that battle, they switched their party line to the current one of claiming that those sites were never "attack sites" in the first place. *Dan T.* 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alec, since that's what I've been saying all along it's hardly reasonable to represent this as a major concession wrong from a hard-line opponent. Dan, your continued use of invective in place of balanced language is undermining your case. You would do well to remember that "the link-banning crowd" includes ArbCom, which is why we are here. The problem is mistaken identity in a few cases: diagnosis, not treatment. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay-- see, not all the pro-badsites people agree with you. Most seem to feel Moore, MakingLights, etc "WERE" attack sites, at least for a period of time. To that way of thinking, during that period of time, they were reliable sources AND attack sites, and the thing to do with a reliable source that is an attack site is to purge the encyclopedia of all its references to that reliable source.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that anything that is a reliable source is, ipso facto, not an attack site, such that an alleged attack site shouldn't be removed if there's a consensus it's a reliable source-- if that's your stance, than you and I are in much closer agreement than I realized. --Alecmconroy 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at some of Will BeBack's recent postings... he's continuing to argue that Making Light is in fact an attack site, and even smearing people who post there. *Dan T.* 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not smearing Mangoe for posting on a blog that was engaged in outing, I'm complaining about his hypocrisy defending that site while refusing to out himself by giving the username that he used in posting to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as not different enough from the previous version to mitigate the issues I noted above. Mangoe 04:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support if this means that MichaelMoore and EncyclopediaDramatica are not reliable sources. Oppose if this is an attempt to get them declared reliable sources. --DHeyward 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The point was to argue if consenssus concludes something IS a reliable source for the purposes of an article, it doesn't fall under the purview of the attack sites policy. --Alecmconroy 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is a pretty clear indication that you are starting with a personal opinion about particular sites, then looking to rig up a contrived policy, and interpretation of same, that confirms your preordained conclusion. *Dan T.* 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

14) Some editors have mistakenly identified sites which are reliable sources but contain a small amount of inappropriate material, residue of past Wikipedia disputes with the subject of the site, as attack sites. While this misidentification was in good faith, it was an error and is not in line with the intent of the MONGO arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... those people failed to read the parts of the policy that are written in invisible ink, which state that "only sites that have offended Clique members are to be construed as attack sites, not sites that confine their attacks to non-Clique peons." (And Mistaken Identity was a decent Kim Carnes album and song.) *Dan T.* 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ... OK, struck out for the benefit of the sarcasm-impaired... and because Kim Carnes is so old-school... musical artists referenced here should be current and hip! *Dan T.* 01:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't constructive. Please refactor. Durova^Charge! 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, there is no policy on attack sites. There is a policy on harassment, and has been for ages. There is also a finding that linking to attack sites may e considered harassment, which is a perfectly reasonable finding in the context of the original case. In the middle of all that are some over-zealous people who have mistakenly identified some sites as attack sites, and a small amount of mis-application of the principle (harassment <> ill-considered inquiry). The solution is to clarify what constitutes an attack site, and the context in which linking it may be considered harassment. I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that ArbCom will roll back the decision, in effect endorsing links to attack sites, as you appear to want. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. This deals with the fact that the definitions of attack sites haev not been clear and have led to misunderstandings among those acting in good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support as gives fair ground that admins and others may be wrong in what they judge to be an attack site (IMO attack sites are only those 100% dedicated to attacking and outing wikipedians such as Wikipedia Watch), SqueakBox 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...which we actually have an article on, complete with an external link to it, so I guess the actual set of Attack Sites that we don't link to is the null set. *Dan T.* 01:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely...the MONGO case was examining ED, a website that provides real life information about some of our contributors.--MONGO 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Anybody linking Wikipedia Watch outside of the context of that page is unlikely to get much sympathy. Those sites liked in their own articles were all mistakenly identified as attack sites. No attack site links were removed from articles on the sites in any of the events leading up to this arbitration. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support This is, in my opinion, the primary item which requires ArbCom clarification. I believe that SlimVirgin's evidence presentation got it exactly right. JavaTenor 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This prepresumes endorsement of an interpretation of the definition of attack sites. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediareview.com, Antisocialmedia.net

15) Given the content of wikipediareview.com, encyclopediadramatica.com and antisocialmedia.net on ((TODAY)), there is no reason for any links from Wikipedia to exist to those sites, which serve solely to harass editors of wikipedia. They are not currently reliable sources nor valid external links, even in articles about themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - content ruling. Phil Sandifer 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hiding behind this identity and a public hot spot because parties here are not acting in good faith. Throwawayarb 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant-- that's a content dispute. I'm not sure it's true either-- it looks like the editors at Overstock.com have reached a consensus that ASM is notable. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. An untrue and irrelevant statement. *Dan T.* 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as untrue, unsoiurced statement, WR does not act solelyy to harrass wikipedia editors and this comment should be struck as trolling, SqueakBox 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy has already blocked a couple of troll / sockpuppet / SPA accounts that have posted here, and removed their postings... so what is he going to do about this one? *Dan T.* 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this troll / sockpuppet / SPA, at his own invitation (see his user page edit). I'd be happy to remove the postings, but people have already commented, and might prefer the thread to be left. ElinorD (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If nothing else, to write an article on such a site without being able to cite quotations from it is crippling. And there is already a quotation from WR which is so cited. This is a violation of verifiability. Mangoe 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, per evidence presented on WR.com links, it is being cited already as a source in WikiBureaucracy pages. Mangoe 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia Review ruling, ambivalent on antisocialmedia, support ED - Wikipedia Review isn't just solely a harassing site - while they do put a lot of focus on SlimVirgin and Jayjg, most of the time they are fair critics. Will ^(talk) 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I support banning links to Wikipedia Watch, but not a blanket ban on WR (the forum) links. Just clarification. Will ^(talk) 08:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have no desire to google all these sites just to confirm that they are still as defined by the above wording. LessHeard vanU 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is subject to manipulation by outside forces that are anti-thetical to the goals of the project

16) Websites can virtually guarantee increased Wikipedia coverage of their website, product, etc, by creating or exposing controversy within the Wikipedia community. From Siegenthaler to Essjay to Daniel Brandt to Encyclopedia Dramatica Michael Moore to Ted Frank, these articles have increased the verbiage on their articles and therefore their Google hits by becoming cause celebre articles within the community. The owners of these sites quickly learn that the way to increased ad revenue is to attack a wikipedia editor. External attacks on WP editors is a form of trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a potential issue, yes... but you can't prove that it's actually the case for the particular parties you listed, and (as a BLP, NPA, and AGF thing) shouldn't assert it without proof. *Dan T.* 04:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What Dan says. As a potential issue, yes, but it's not at all clear that it's true for any of the examples given. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can prove their google hits went up (try it!). You can easily prove that Ted Frank article drove up his Google hits. I think it's self evident that External attacks on WP editors is a form of trolling. What you seem to be objecting to is the motive, not the facts. This is a statement of fact, not of motive. --DHeyward 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're going beyond statements of fact by giving a strong implication that you think these people are purposely creating controversy by attacking Wikipedia, rather than actually believing in the positions they are taking. *Dan T.* 12:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am saying they *DO* create controversy within the community regardless of their motive. --DHeyward 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be something valuable here, but invoking the Siegenthaler fiasco and Essjay fraud only suggests that we deserve these attacks.Proabivouac 06:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't to say whether that manipulation was deserved or non-deserved, just that the community reacts. For Siegenthaler, for example, a lot of the internal gyration was the creation and debate of articles on the notability of the person that was identified by external websites as the perpetrator of the hoax. Essjay created a lot of debate on the creation of the real life Essjay. --DHeyward 07:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong case, the THF arbitration is down the corridor on the left. There is no evidence that michaelmoore.com has influenced Wikipedia content. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus exists to link to notable "outing" sites

17) In some cases, the Wikipedia Community has reached consensus to include links to notable websites that have engaged in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I doubt such consensus exists Fred Bauder 02:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wikitruth and Wikipedia Watch. Not to mention MichaelMoore, DonMurphy, Makinglight, PervertedJustice, NYT, and Slashdot. --Alecmconroy 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The ones mentioned after Wikitruth and Wikipedia Watch don't post personally revealing info about our contribtors on a routine basis. Wikipedia Watch is by far the worst one you listed.--MONGO 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed finding doesn't say "websites which have routinely engaged in", it says "websites which have engaged in". You're reading in a qualifier that isn't there. The proposal is aimed at those people who'd delete a link on the basis that the website has published private information somwehre--not on a routine basis, but at all. Ken Arromdee 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to their prompt response when asked to remove outing information, I would not call Making Light an "outing site". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But you did at the time. --Alecmconroy 07:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

At the time they were hosting harassing attacks on a Wikipedia editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the title of this section doesn't match the proposal. The title speaks of outing sites, and the proposal speaks of websites which have published private information. Depending on how you define "outing site" and "engaged in the practice of", these may mean drastically different things.

Suggestion: scrap the title and change the text from "have engaged in the practice of publishing" to "have sometimes published" or "have routinely published" depending on which one you mean. Ken Arromdee 16:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Badly worded. An attack site habitually does this. Several of those named in this proposed finding do not habitually do so. OTRS volunteers will be aware that people become upset over what is written on Wikipedia. OTRS is full of legal threats, but we don't ban them and ignore them, we talk to them nicely and try to fix the problem. With Murphy and Moore, we very clearly fixed the problem with little effort, indicating that these are not attack sites. The problem is diagnosis not treatment. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My point here is that the vagueness and inconsistency is hurting. If you mean sites that have posted at least one attack somewhere, say so. If you mean sites that habitually post attacks, say so. If you talk about being "engaged in the practice of" posting attacks, it's going to be interpreted either way depending on personal preference. Ken Arromdee 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence of consensus? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking is not a right

18) Nobody has any right to have Wikipedia link to their opinion. This applies particularly to banned users. Links exist as a convenience only, and Wikipedia reserves the right to exclude any content it deems inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In evidence we have Daniel Brandt's assertion that removal of a polemical link from the Signpost is a pressing problem. This fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy. Nobody has any right to link anything in Wikipedia, least of all banned users; the sole enforceable rights are the right to fork and the right to leave. Polemic by banned users is removed from Wikipedia as a matter of course. Wikilawyering over whether the MONGO arbitration was an appropriate justification for removing offsite polemic from a banned user is a distraction: polemic by banned users is not allowed on Wikipedia, and using a link to an external site does not change that. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't have it in evidence because as far as I know it isn't cited anywhere in the evidence. Mangoe 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is partly untrue, and partly a red herring. It's untrue in cases where material is included, quoted, or excerpted which is covered by a copyright license which requires a crediting link (there are actually a few cases, in the long and sordid history of removing so-called "attack site" links, where copyright compliance was in fact compromised). In all other cases, it's technically true, but irrelevant; it's not the rights of the external site owner that are at issue here, but the editorial judgment of editors deciding what links are relevant in a given case being usurped by an attempt at an overreaching policy banning broad categories of links without regard to editorial concerns in particular cases. *Dan T.* 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have to agree with Dan on at least one point of this. Linking to web cites isn't a right— it's an obligation. The biggest reason why the BADSITES erasures have been so disruptive is that they have been so indiscriminate. It was one thing when people started removing them from user talk pages, and another (though already controversial) when they were being smudged in WikiBureaucracy pages. But right from the very beginning BADSITES was used against citations, and that is simply not acceptable. And in the TNH case it was used against a long list of article citations. The issue of external link sections is more arguable (but should be put to a proper policy discussion); this is not. Mangoe 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. We can cite something which has no website at all. And I'd disagree with "indiscriminate". There were some mistaken identifications, and that's why clarification is required. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but one cannot cite a website without giving a URL to it. Saying that "well, they can cite a print document instead" is a "let them eat brioche" response. Mangoe 11:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Hotlinks are not necessary for citation purposes. The proposed principle refers to opinions, which are already treated differently than factual information. Editors who are banned for some type of disruption should not be allowed to continue disrupting Wikipedia by proxy. It is illogical to assert that Wikipedia may not prohibit links as it sees fit. We already ban many weblinks for a variety of reasons, mostly due to commercial spam. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say hot links; links that have to be cut-and-pasted are still entirely usable, after all. Besides, if you use the standard citation templates, you will get a hot link. Now, as far as "opinion" is concerned, I really don't see how this figures in this at all, if we mean "statements expressed as opinions." But in none of the cases in question, not a single one, does this enter into the matter, except possibly the citation in Expert Retention. Given the nature of that page, this principle seems to be on the edge of justifying the page's deletion, not just the erasure of one quotation. (And after all, if the quotation is there, it calls out to be cited.) This smells to me like another one of those hypothetical arguments that will simply be used to clog the discussion, just like the "I can't imagine why we would ever link to such a site" argument that has been trotted out at intervals thus far. Mangoe 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Disruption of by banned Wikipedia users, by misuse of links to their attack sites should be discouraged in the strongest terms possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Obviously - an important point. But clearer wording at the relevant links guideline should be discussed there as well. Eusebeus 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment While linking is not a right, it is much more than a convenience; there is much in Wikipedia guidelines on how to create and manage links and why, since it is core to the principle of WP:Verify - however, I concede that there is no absolute that a link must exist. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MichaelMoore.com attempted to influence the Wikipedia community. .

19) MichaelMoore.com attempted to influence the Wikipedia community by calling attention to an editor that he had conflict with through links on his personal web page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. We cannot really know why the news post was made, however I think it was to bring the issue to mass attention, that a person critical of him on a professional level, was in fact editing articles on a neutral encyclopedia. It could have also been just a notice for fans. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe he supplied links to a Wikipedia editors' user talk page with instructions. I'm not sure what you mean by "news post". I think it's pretty clear that when an external web site asks it's viewers to leave messages on editors talk page or articles, it's an attempt to influence the article or community. --DHeyward 14:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how it affected the community. If he posted a link to an article THF wrote that had the ability to leave a comment, was he then attempting to influence the newspaper? The community is not represented by a sole person. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

At least while he had the "edit" links in there, he clearly was trying to influence the community. However, this is an observation of the "Yeah... so?" variety, when it comes to making link policy. Sure, people will try to influence our community, sometimes in unfair ways, but that doesn't mean we can't be more mature about it than they are, and refrain from acting in a panicky and hysterical way to it. *Dan T.* 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem with this finding is that it assumes our links to Michael Moore are there FOR Michael Moore's sake. The thinking is-- if Michael Moore is sufficiently bad, it's appropriate for us to punish him by removing his links. But the true interaction is between us and our readers. Defacing our own encyclopedia to punish Michael Moore is cutting of our nose to spite our face. --Alecmconroy 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the idea that the community of editors are more important than the readers here, or completeness of information is a bit of an ego stroke. While the work of the community is much appreciated, like police officers, what they are protecting is more important, and they cannot be provided a higher stature then those they serve. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not a remedy. This is just a fact. There can ranges of responses to this fact including doing nothing, but it is still a fact. I think there needs to be agreement on the facts before a remedy can be proposed. --DHeyward 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did he? I think that's speculative. They were pissed off, and reacted with satire, which is exactly what anyone familiar with Moore's work would expect. The important point is, they removed the content in response to reasonable dialogue. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

English is a rich language

20) Synonyms for clique, include: affiliation, aggregation, alliance, assemblage, assembly, associates, association, band, bevy, body, brotherhood, bunch, cabal, camarilla, camp, circle, clan, class, club, cluster, coalition, collection, combination, combo, community, companions, company, comrades, comradeship, concourse, confederacy, confederation, congregation, congress, convention, cooperative, corporation, corps, cortege, coterie, covey, crew, cronies, crowd, crush, ensemble, faction, family, federation, fellowship, folks, fraternity, friends, gang, gathering, group, guild, hookup, horde, house, in-group, insiders, intimates, jungle, kinfolks, league, lot, mafia, menagerie, mob, moiety, muster, order, organization, outfit, pack, partnership, party, pool, race, rat, pack, retinue, ring, ruck, school, secret, society, sect, set, society, sodality, stock, syndicate, team, throng, tie-in, tie-up, tribe, troop, troops, troupe, turnout, union, and 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.'

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Propose transwikiing to Wiktionary. *Dan T.* 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If I choose to call a spade a fork, it still remains a spade. And this holds if I really desire it to be a fork, or if I wish to avoid other people calling it a spade. Thus, this is utterly pointless. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But if you find yourself mentioning a thin, flat digging implement on a long handle fifty times on one page, you might consider the word "shovel" every so often. ShaleZero 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoe hum... LessHeard vanU 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant, as I hardly think calling a clique a mafia, mob, sect, or syndicate is any improvement. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Clique" is somewhat milder in tone than "cabal", a favorite of anti-Wikipedia attackers, though. *Dan T.* 14:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And, like webmasters like to say, "Clique Here!" *Dan T.* 14:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

21a) Wikipedia Review is an attack site. 21b) Wikipedia Review is not an attack site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I haven’t yet formed an opinion on this myself, but I don’t think anything short of an explicit arbcom ruling on this will suffice to resolve this issue. —Random832 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If they're going to remand to the community to construct a policy, these would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Let the community construct something, let editors decide how to apply that policy, and let disputes between editors go to arbcom. I wouldn't be shocked if a WR case dispute has to wind up at arbcom someday, but I actually think it may be within our capabilities to reach a consensus on this without Arbcom. --Alecmconroy 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Marshalling an argument pro or con would be difficult without actually presenting some links there. But I would say no... it criticizes Wikipedia and Wikipedians, sometimes coarsely, uncivilly, unfairly, and so on... but its reason for existence is not to harrass anybody. *Dan T.* 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No is my default reply. However, when on occasion it acts like one treat it thus - and I would suggest the same for any other site whose criticism sometimes exceeds that what might be deemed appropriate. LessHeard vanU 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

22) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Everybody involved is sent to their room with no dessert

1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go to bed half an hour early and refrain from dessert for 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just to make clear that we're not proposing any, you know, real sanctions. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This was a rather minor editing dispute as these things go, and everybody calmed down pretty quickly. However, I think it needs to be made clear that when it is perceived that the explicit provisions of a policy are "broken" or flawed, the place to resolve that is at the policies themselves and not by removing edits carried out in accordance with the "flawed" policy. (Just that general principle, nothing aimed at any particular editor, as everyone was acting in good faith yadda yadda.)--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This sanction is subject to overruling by their mommies. *Dan T.* 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Loss of WP editing time by early bedtime is recovered by non availability of dessert. Strike proposal as having no net effect? LessHeard vanU 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new here. Lots of cases end without editors getting their just desserts. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, per my favorite TV show being on at 9:30 tonight. You're not even my real dad. ShaleZero 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My people are the people of the dessert. - T.E. Lawrence, picking up his fork. Durova^Charge! 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He was known to confuse the two, which is why he is so thin in his photographs.--Mantanmoreland 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you Shaw? LessHeard vanU 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaw, I'm Shaw. *Dan T.* 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody involved is sent to the desert

1.1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go into a desert for a length of time to be determined (24 hours? 40 days and 40 nights? 40 years?).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think taking one "s" out of "dessert" yields something that will do better for giving humility to the participants, encourage meditation about the issues involved, and, presuming that it's a desert without WiFi hotspots, will keep them from making trouble on Wikipedia for a while. *Dan T.* 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the word 'Rutabaga' is to be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia under any circumstances

2) I've heard of somebody who had a freak farming accident as a child, and just barely escaped being crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas, and as a result is traumatized by any mention of the offending vegetable. Or maybe I just made it up, but you've got to Assume Good Faith about it. Anyway, this alleged person feels personally attacked and emotionally injured every time he or she encounters the word "rutabaga", so we should err on the side of protecting the feelings of our potential editors (since this alleged person might possibly decide to become a Wikipedia editor at some indeterminate time in the future) by proactively removing anything that might cause such emotional harm. Thus, the word "rutabaga" should be banned from Wikipedia. It's possible that the application of other policies might compel the word to be used to a limited degree, like on the Rutabaga article itself (though it might be desirable to recast it using some synonym, if a suitable other word can be found), but certainly its use can be flatly banned on unrelated article pages and in user, talk, and project space. It's the least we can do to promote human decency in a common sense way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can't think of a better example of the degree of contempt some editors feel toward victims of stalking.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. And, once this case closes, this page should be refactored to remove the offending word in the above section. Maybe it could be replaced with a less offensive word like "pedophile". *Dan T.* 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This might very well be the most disruptive point proposal I have ever seen on an arbcom case.--MONGO 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right... it's ridiculously slanderous of the perfectly fine vegetable, rutabagas. Didn't some midwestern state pass a law banning defamation of foods? Now, if it were broccoli being proposed for a ban, I'd be all for it... that's an Attack Vegetable. *Dan T.* 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the law being passed, but I do know that whenever someone is on this website and has an agenda that is not congruent with writing encyclopedia articles and instead is more interested in tabloid nonsense, innuendo and ridiculing those that have had to deal with real life harassment as a side effect of editing here, they really do need a large dose of reality. Frankly, I think your pointed nonsense here is disruptive and about as helpful as a dead fly.--MONGO 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the editor in question who feels traumatized by mention of the word "rutabaga" also happens to be a prominent admin here in the project, who has written much of Wikipedia's current policy, and once used a sock to vote twice in a Featured Article candidate review and then concealed that she did that during her subsequent RfA, then we should especially protect her by banning any website that mentions that word. Of course. Cla68 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the sneering innuendo above every bit as offensive as this contemptuous WP:POINT "proposal."--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If this proposal genuinely reflects how Dan feels about attack site links, I think we had better ban him. Seriously. This is an appalling dismissal of the very real distress - and real-world problems - that attack sites have brought to Wikipedia editors. This seeks to repudiate the entire MONGO arbitration, not just clarify the meaning and intent of not linking to attack sites. Are we expected to take anything Dan has said in this case seriously now? Is he genuinely unable to see the difference between harassment and this stupid invented illustration? I hope Dan is not serious in this, because if he is then there is pretty much no chance whatsoever that we will ever come to an agreement. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, in this context - where we are discussing attack sites that have spread on the web viscious innuendo and have defamed editors who act in good faith, who have been outed and stalked, receiving threatening leters and phone calls including threats against family members, it at best is trivial and inappropriate, and at worst offensive for trivializing the problems (which sometimes require the intervention of police) attack sites cause fellow editors. I am not saying I am sure what the solution to this problem is, but it is a serious problem and people who make light of it are, if acting in good faith, ignorant, and if they are not ignorant, then they are bullies. Dan Tobias seems to think it is funny that people are stalked and memebers of their families threatened, and they have to turn to the police. This is no joke - Tobias is just being a bully. Laughing at other people who are suffering is not funny, and to support these attack-sites is no defense of free speech, it just means you find your own sadistic amusement and entertainment more important than the physical safety of others Slrubenstein | Talk 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While certainly engaging in an un-needed excess of sarcasm, I think that Dan was alluding to the fact that there has been unwarranted demonization of those who disagree with BADSITES and its ilk... as ably demonstrated by the responses above. The proponents of BADSITES go on about how the people opposing them 'support harassment', 'themselves engage in harassment by linking to attack sites', 'are cruel and insensitive to people under attack', 'should be banned', et cetera. It's unjustified and improper... all of it. Nobody is saying that we should not care about and try to protect our users, and the people claiming otherwise have so lost sight of 'assume good faith' that they may need a map and long days of travel to find their way back. What is disputed is the particular method of protecting our users being suggested... both in that it does not IMO achieve that goal and causes damage of its own. The anger and denunciations are understandable from the mindset of, 'we need to have this to protect people'... but AGF should lead to the understanding that the alternate view is 'this does not protect anyone and it makes a horrific mess'. --CBD 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD, my point is that these experience of stalked and violated editors is what is at stake here. Now, if BADSITES was an inappropriate or ineffective way to deal with that, so be it. If people's proposals about attack sites are not the right way to handle this problem, so be it. But let's have constructive suggestions about better ways to deal with this problem. Let's focus on the problem that needs solving and not failed attempts to address the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is a community discussion to work out new policies on privacy and user protection. This is an arbitration case... something which specifically does not create new policies. We are here for the explicit purpose of 'focusing on what went wrong'... precisely what you say we should not be doing. One of the things which has gone wrong is that proponents of BADSITES have violated civility and AGF in attacking people who disagree with them and think the policy is being abused. Dan's parody of that behaviour above was not the most polite way of raising the issue, but sadly it was an accurate parallel of the reality. --CBD 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Granting your point, surely you can see a difference between finding out what went wrong in a constructive way, versus an unconstructive and even meanspirited way. I would have no objection to a harsh analysis of what went wrong if I thought it were constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not the only thing that has gone wrong. We've also had opponents of BADSITES asserting that we should be free to link to attacks (which we shouldn't) and using mistakes in identification of attack sites as a means of undermining the perfectly sound principle that linking to attack sites is just wrong. There is fault on both sides, plus honest mistakes, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was lost at the "horrific mess" comment...what horrific mess? You want horror, ask some of our editors who have been harassed. Preposterous commentary defending linking to websites that have little or no encyclopedic merit is truly baffling.--MONGO 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal trivializes the issues here and is, at best, unhelpful. Newyorkbrad 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a few others around here who are showing insufficient compassion to attack victims... like MONGO saying that the attacks (on blacks, Jews, etc.) on Stormfront are irrelevant given that they're not against Wikipedians (I wouldn't be so sure... they've apparently railed against the "Wikipedia Jewish conspiracy" sometimes) and JzG saying that the genuine outing and harrassment done by Don Murphy on his site is irrelevant because that's not the main purpose of the site. *Dan T.* 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting commentary on word taboos is here, and here (including a Monty Python skit). *Dan T.* 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, that's even more absurd than this proposal. What I said about Don Murphy's site is precisely true: it is not an attack site. Do remember that my address and phone number were on that forum. What happened there is that Murphy's fans got carried away. I had a calm exchange of emails with Murphy and the junk was removed. That is one of the essential distinctions between an attack site and the site of someone who feels done down by Wikipedia. Anyone who has ever been on OTRS knows that we get some very angry upset people, and that's quite forgivable in most cases. There is a massive difference between Murphy's site engaging in some juvenile, inappropriate and in my case at least speedily nuked nonsense, and sites which specialise in harassment and outing, especially those which act as a harbour for justly banned disrupters of this project like Barber, Bagley and Awbrey, to name but three currently active contributors to one attack site. This arbitration case is not about establishing some new statement of principle that linking to sites which habitually harass and attack is fine. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. It's about clarifying the intent of the original MONGO arbitration, for the guidance of those who have been excessively zealous and insufficiently clueful in its application, albeit motivated by the purest of motives (and here I'm assuming good faith). The sites which have been identified as problem removals are not attack sites. The sites which have been identified as attack sites don't belong in the encyclopaedia. There is no real tension here between not linking to attack sites and maintaining an encyclopaedia; no attack sites have been identified which are reliable sources, and in the end external links are only a convenience anyway, and far from being an integral part of the project (for all that the SEO mob are spitting mad at nofollow being set). Guy (Help!) 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, your methods leave me in a quandry. You're largely correct in your comments in this case, but when you make your points in such disruptive and unsavory manner as this, a good amount of people just write you off. Could you please try civil discourse and reasonable proposals instead of this mocking provocation? No one here has malicious intent. That said, Guy's proposal to ban you is much sillier than nearly anything you've said, and I ask him to rescind it so people who disagree with him aren't afraid to contribute. Picaroon (t) 20:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come now Picaroon. Why would anyone be afraid of threats to ban people for participating in this discussion... when they can instead be afraid because of actual bans for doing so? --CBD 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeeeeez...! LessHeard vanU 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for anybody I offended with this satire... I really should take this ArbCom stuff more seriously. Maybe it should be transwikied to Uncyclopedia. Meanwhile, now that I've united people on both sides of the issue in being peeved at me, maybe that can get all of you working together cooperatively to solve this thing?  :-) *Dan T.* 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors requested to start over with consensus-building

3) The editors of Wikipedia are [asked/instructed] to restart a process to determine whether the #external links section of Wikipedia:No personal attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the associated three-revert rule exemption have community consensus. The Arbitration Committee itself makes no determination on whether this section has consensus, and arguments that say "some arbitrators are in favor" and "some arbitrators are against" are punishable by a smack over the head.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose in current form - while some aspects of this are issues of community consensus (the reversal of the community's decision on removing personal attacks, the excepton to the 3RR), others are not actually issues the community is empowered to decide - those I described in a principle as falling under the penumbra of NPOV. Those issues cannot and should not be sent back for more community consensus, because they reside outside our decision making process. Phil Sandifer 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil, the fact of the matter is that, as you and I see it, the WP:NPA#external links section is contrary to the NPOV policy. Yet, it is currently policy nonetheless. You don't want the Arbitration Committee to invalidate the section; revert-warring to remove or modify it won't lead to a lasting solution; and you don't want the community to have a discussion over whether the section as it applies to articles is in violation of NPOV. So how do we go about clarifying that the policy does not apply to articles? Picaroon (t) 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, that bit of NPA is not policy because it cannot possibly be or ever have been policy. That is, because we cannot ammend policy to trump NPOV and the wiki process by Foundation mandate, the relevant section of NPA is not and never was policy inasmuch as it attempted to do that. My hope is that the arbcom will rule to this effect - that is, avoid a ruling beyond "X does not trump Y." Which is not the arbcom making policy, but rather properly following the special status of m:Foundation issues. Phil Sandifer 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Maybe all the Arbitration Committee needs to do is do nothing at all. This includes temporarily rescinding/nullifying principle 3 from the MONGO decision, to ensure no one resorts to saying the issue of whether this section has consensus beyond debate because the ArbCom says so. Picaroon (t) 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This puts the policy-making back in the hands of the community, where it belongs, with no further "arguments from authority" citing the ArbCom. *Dan T.* 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The assumption here is that the main problem is the Arbcom ruling, and it isn't. People used the Arbcom ruling because it was easy to cite. But the main thrust of the argument was "this is something we should do, and Arbcom agrees." Not because Arbcom agrees. -Amarkov moo! 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Amarkov - there is no need to renegotiate fundamental policy, only to clarify the intent of the original ruling, which itself clarified the interpretation of policy in a reasonable way. Attacks and harassment are bad. We don't do attacks. Taking them offsite does not change that, which was precisely the point of the original ruling. The last thing we need is to encourage those who have a principled objection to any restriction of free speech (a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia which is common but nonetheless a misconception) to believe that we can reverse the many policies and long-standing consensus which mitigates against harassment and attacks. The reason the MONGO prinicple passed was that MONGO was being attacked and harassed, and links to that site were being posted by trolls with various protestations of injured innocence when they were called on it. Wikipedia is not free speech. The First Amendment does not apply here. It is a private project, and the rules have always included variants on don't be a dick. And let's be honest, anyone can cluelessly or misguidedly post something, but if you're asked not to and told it's an unacceptable attack against someone, only a dick would persist in adding the link. They might discuss the merits of its content, but insisting on linking to harassment is really not the kind of thing that our brightest and best contributors are likely to do, is it? Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Define "fundamental policy," please. I'm not quite sure what the definition is, but I'd guess that what it isn't is a section of a policy that a) was not adopted based on community consensus and b) contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not censored (oh, and Wikipedia:Avoid self references). And for the record, the "badsites are bad" mantra is getting a bit tedious. In a "Four legs good, two legs bad" sort of way. Picaroon (t) 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But some animals are more equal than others! *Dan T.* 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather pointless. WP:NPA was blatantly forum-shopped from the original BADSITES discussion when it was clear that the latter was failing to reach consensus. There has even been a bit of an edit war over the connection between the two, because the move was accompanied by changing WP:BADSITES to redirect to NPA, implying in the minds of many that the latter endorsed the former. It has been something of an effort to keep BADSITES admitting that it was rejected and that it wasn't simply encorporated into NPA. And maybe it's just me, but I see no sign that a consensus is developing in NPA either; instead, the argument there has basically rehashed parts of the original dispute, with no sign of resolution save intermittent page protects. So I don't see a reason to keep going; if it comes to this, we say "no consensus" and BADSITES remains rejected.

Also, I don't agree with Amarkov's characterization of how the MONGO finding entered into discussion. Time and again we were told that "Arbcom said it, I cited it, and that settles it." The finding has been used as a trump card throughout this; that's why Sandifer is going after NPOV and I'm going after verifiability, because the implicit assertion has been that the MONGO finding overrules those principles. Mangoe 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointless I should think it obvious that consensus will not emerge (see this arbitration) until there is a clarification of the initial MONGO decision that lead to the original creation of the BADSITES policy and its later inclusion in WP:NPA. Indeed, are we not seeking clarification so that consensus may be reached? LessHeard vanU 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dtobias is placed on prohibition for external link addition

4) User:Dtobias is placed on external links probation. If User:Dtobias re-adds a link to any page, including talk pages, he may be blocked briefly by any admin for up to 24 hours. After 3 such blocks, the maximum duration increases to 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Something involving bamboo splints under his fingernails... Fred Bauder 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While the rutabega proposal is idiotic and unfunny, I see nothing on the evidence page that indicates a problem with Dtobias's article editing. Phil Sandifer 01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mean, mean... in my totally objective, fair, reasonable, unbiased, and modest opinion, my proposal was brilliant and hilarious... but also WP:POINTed, and not appropriate for an oh-so-serious ArbCom thingy (but neither are the proposals about desserts and deserts above it). *Dan T.* 02:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad-faith trolling as per ElinorD's comment below. This just underlines the need for this case to be taken private.--Mantanmoreland 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we can just live with the fact that there will be trolls around, as a consequence of being free and open, and don't let it faze you -- even when they try to attack you (as this one did me). *Dan T.* 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Has demonstrated a contempt for editors (rutabaga = stalking). Throwawayarb 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Hey, neat... a silly troll on the opposite side from me! A nice change!  :-) *Dan T.* 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think he's on the opposite side? It's perfectly possible to set up an account to act excessively on one side, in order to discredit it. Remember DennyColt. ElinorD (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It has never been established, as far as I know, what DennyColt was about when he started this war. The deduction that he was the tool of the attackers seems to be entirely supposition, and in my opinion rather questionable considering his edit history. It's as plausible, if not more so, to consider him to be someone somewhat naive who simply didn't realize the consequences of what he was writing. In any case it doesn't seem to me to be relevant what his motives were. Mangoe 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey this is an arbcom hearing and we are not exempt from giving Denny our good faith nor has there been any plausibkle evidence that he was a sock of anybody's. I endorse what Mangoe says, that he was somewhat naive (indicating a new user) and once he saw any admin promotion disaoppear (which precludes the sock of an admin) into the dust once he had called Dan Tobias a terrorist[12] he left, SqueakBox 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The finding of fact or evidence that he is so disruptive about adding links that he should be completely barred from doing so? -Amarkov moo! 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this includes all external links, even to something totally inoffensive. *Dan T.* 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed remedy is arbitrary, and therefore inappropriate. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is wise. Sarcasm unpolluted by bad behaviour is not a blockable offense. WilyD 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as Dan is seriously opposing this BADSITES from a policy viewpoint and we must NEVER discourage the kind of well-thought out, "sticking to policy but arguing their ground" type of approach that Dan has shown, SqueakBox 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is true, but his continual hijacking of any debate even tangentially related in order to try to get people to allow links to Wikipedia Review, where he is a contributor, is well beyond tiresome by now. Dan's crusade is apparently founded on an absolute conviction that unless we allow attack sites to e linked, we are "suppressing", "chilling", "censoring" and other emotive terms. But Wikipedia is not free speech, the First Amendment is not enforceable in a private project and the kinds of attacks we've seen in the past undoubtedly make it worthwhile to have an unambiguous precedent that says we do not tolerate offsite harassment any more than we tolerate onsite harassment. Most of us want a clarification of the MONGO ruling. Dan wants it reversed altogether. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • Guy, Dan is entitled to disagree with you as you are with him, disagreing with someone should not be a blockable or probabtionable offence, and if he believes the MONGO ruling should be reversed we should not censor him for having that opinion, SqueakBox 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And your crusade is apparently founded on an absolute conviction that unless we ban such sites from being linked, we are "harrassing", "stalking", "intimidating", and other emotive terms. But Wikipedia is not a '60s love-fest, and the kinds of abuses of the linking policy we've seen in the past undoubtedly make it worthwhile to have an unambiguous precedent that says we do not tolerate censorship of outbound links any more than we tolerate censorship of our own content. Most of us want a return to a more sensible link policy. Guy wants the existing problematic one preserved and extended. *Dan T.* 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This name-calling is tedious. I refuse to speculate much about motives, but the problem with talking about WR is that it is already cited in one place (Wikipedia: Expert Retention) and ought to be cited in another (Essjay controversy, where there is an entry in the timeline that as far as I can tell could only be cited from WR itself). And as far as taint is concerned, there are way too many people here who could be alleged to have an interest in getting WR in or keeping WR out of Wikipedia. I could be so accused, JzG could be accused, MONGO and SlimVirgin and Mantmoreland could be accused.... If we forced everyone to pull out who could be seen as having an interest in this, there wouldn't be many participants left. FOr the nonce we need to act as if we were disinterested parties, even though we all know that this isn't true. Mangoe 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If you find name calling tedious why do you participate in it yourself? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Dan is indeed entitled to disagree with me. However, in the last couple of months there has been a steady stream of discussions of links to attack sites, and in every single case Dan has piled in with the same arguments. Dan is a contributor to Wikipedia Review, and Dan has been agitating for a long time to be allowed to link Wikipedia Review. But Wikipedia Review is not a reliable source, and it is an attack site a number of whose contributors are justly banned from Wikipedia. We don't allow banned users a platform. We don't allow attacks, harassment and outing. Dan's position appears to be absolutist: that we should be free to link to attack sites. Mine is pragmatic: that we should have a presumption against such links, but that we should clarify the definition of an attack site so as to avoid the few cases of mistaken identity we've seen here. That's not a crusade, it's a desire to avoid silly edit wars while supporting the sound principle already decided in policy and clarified by the MONGO arbitration that harassment and outing are unacceptable. All the MONGO finding did was to note that taking them offsite does not override that. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, you are aware that there is an ongoing Arbitration Committee proceeding on whether some interpretations of the MONGO decision, and the language used, has been correctly arrived at? LessHeard vanU 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links are again subject to 3RR

5) Removal of external links are again subject to the Three-Revert Rule policy. The standard exceptions, such as reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, still apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is intended to give the benefit of the doubt to those removing attacks. If the removal is improper, the remedy is dispute resolution, not reverting. Fred Bauder 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that in support or opposition? Mind, I find it ironic that people seem intent on using 3RR here as a way of distracting attention for the fact that 3RR can only be invoked if an edit war is in progress; the option not to edit war exists always, and for both sides in the dispute. WP:BRD is the appropriate model, and the onus is on those advocating inclusion of specific content to achieve consensus for its inclusion - this is one way we guard against POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, in the MakingLights case, we had one editor who, over the course of a day and a half, edit-warred against consensus by removing links 42 times. FOURTY-TWO times. They were good, useful links. There was a strong consensus to include them. That editor has said has said he may do so again in the future if the same situation comes up again. Three reverts is enough for anyone-- if there's really consensus to remove them, it should be easy to remove keep the removed while complying with the limits of 3RR. If there is a consensus to include them, one disgruntled person shouldn't be able to veto the consensus of the community. --Alecmconroy 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What, and nobody thought to stop the madness and take it to Talk? Dialogue by edit summary is rarely productive, after all. Oh, and looking at it, that blog is being inappropriately used as a source for negative content in respect of living people. Bad idea. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do blocked editors contribute on article talkpages whether their links were appropriate? LessHeard vanU 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose, actually - though I think they should be, outside of a reason why the decision to change WP:NPA in this fashion was prima faciae invalid, this is policy formation. Phil Sandifer 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ordinarily I would agree with you, except it seems like it's a "policy change" to undo arbcom's earlier "policy change". Can we think of a way to word it such that it's just arbcom saying "When we changed policy in MONGO, that policy change is now invalid"-- Essentially just removing they exemption the provided. --Alecmconroy 03:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. In the MONGO Case, ArbCom created a new exemption to 3RR which went beyond what was stated in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. In that ruling, ArbCom stated: "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR." This new exception has been the source of much of the problem. Arbcom should help rectify the situation by removing the exemption it provided in MONGO, thereby returning the matter to the community. --Alecmconroy 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I favor this policy change, but share the concern of others that it wouldn't be proper for the ArbCom to impose it (or any other policy change) unilaterally and in the absence of consensus. I'd stick to having them rescind their earlier assertion that 3RR didn't apply to link removal, but then leave it to the community to decide in the normal policy process whether to retain such an exemption without there being an "argument from authority" for it coming from ArbCom. *Dan T.* 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed; First, it's irrelevant. If the meaning of the proscription against attack sites s correctly clarified, there will be no more edit wars. Also, it takes two to make an edit war; it can be stopped at any time by either side taking it to talk. This is an unnecessary measure. Second, it seems to be functionally equivalent to endorsing gaming the 3RR. The onus is on those seeking to include content to gain consensus for its inclusion. If consensus truly exists, that will rapidly become apparent, and other measures in dispute resolution can be used if edit warring continues. And if there isn't consensus, then it stays out. Either outcome will be apparent well before the deadline, being as there isn't one. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, enforcing the 3RR is equivalent to gaming the 3RR? How in Gord's name does that work? Not to mention that you just laid out an argument to not apply 3RR to any removal of content short of outright vandalism.

Also, "If the meaning of the proscription against attack sites s correctly clarified, there will be no more edit wars" is naive. No matter how much we clarify rules on NPOV, WP:V, vandalism, advertising, et al, there are still people who disregard or misunderstand them, or just convince themselves that what they're doing isn't a violation, and edit wars still happen. Why would it be any different with this policy? ShaleZero 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that only works if both parties go to the talk page. Freeing a party from 3RR frees them from the need to participate in talk; the war "stops" with them winning if they hold themselves aloof from the discussion. And that's tended to happen. At any rate, it seems to me that while the notion was well-intended, it sets off edit wars as it stands because of the disgreement over the principles involved and their application. If we can get something that has consensus, then the community can restore such an exemption. Mangoe 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies. And although both sides have to be prepared to accept that in the mean time their preferred content may be missing, the onus is always on those seeking to include specific content to justify its inclusion. In every case in article space given in evidence, as far as I can tell, consensus was reached pretty quickly; no sites remain inappropriately delinked because it's obvious that michaelmoore.com, to name but one, is not an attack site. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I really wanted to support this, but it is obvious that "linking to an attack site" is going to be classed as "simple vandalism", allowing the deleting editor to claim dispensation from 3RR. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers

6) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, off-line stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as per SV's wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If a site is genuinely threatening people with physical or sexual violence, call the police. Trying to claim that any of the actual sites currently under discussion does anything of the sort is a gross exagerration intended to poison the debate with emotional rhetoric. *Dan T.* 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Dan. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So people can make whatever sensationalist claims they want, like "Those attack sites are sexually humiliating me!", with no proof required, and use them to get links banned, and everybody else is required to "assume good faith" and not oppose them in any way? *Dan T.* 03:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Very weak oppose If the title were amended to indicate that such material was and remains the only content then I could support. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excessively gamable. All the site needs to do is put up one page about fluffy kittens and bingo! they can spam their links all over Wikipedia with impunity. "Mainly or habitually" seems like the best definition to me. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Purpose," not "object of every page on the site without exception." It would take some pretty brazen wikilawyering. combined with outright lying about the meaning of words, to even claim that a fluffy-kittens page exempts a site - never mind actually convincing anybody of it. ShaleZero 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Very strong OPPOSE. Replace "sites" with "pages" and I've got my foot in the water but still opposed. I propose alternative B.

Support with the qualification that articles on the site itself can have a non-hotlink. I have yet to see a site that attacks Wikipedia editors and passes for a WP:RS to be included in articles other than themselves. --DHeyward 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is because of circular reasoning though. We automatically exempt reliable sources from the definition of "Attack Site", and so we then, in turn, argue that "Attack Sites" are never reliable sources. NYtimes, Wikiscanner, and many others, have responded in "attack-site-like" behavior many time: outing wikipedia editors, listing their names, details about their life, and harshly criticizing their on-wiki behavior. In Essjay Controversy, for example, the media outed an editor, told many many details about his life, criticized him for his behavior, and criticized wikipedia as a whole. All the elements of "BADSITES" are there, except that we recognized those links are legitimate. The difference between a "BADSITE" and a "GOOD-OUTING-SITE" comes down not to specific behaviors as much as factors of Notability, Reliability, Intention, and Frequency. --Alecmconroy 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

6, Alternative: Don't link to attacks.

6b) Don't link to attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative. This all that needs to be said. If a destination URL (definitely not TLD) isn't an attack then it isn't an attack. If it is an attack, then it needs to be examined for context. SchmuckyTheCat

Support - geocities.com/wikipedia/ihatemongo.htm may be an attack, but geocities.com/wikipedia/myfavarticle.htm may not me. Will ^(talk) 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this is all that really needs to be said. If a link is attacking an editor, remove it. If not, it may or may not need to be removed. No need to say "if the site fulfils criteria X and Y and you're an established editor and the moon is not full and it isn't currently a religious holiday". -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Clown

7) Wikipedia:Attack sites and WP:BADSITES are permanently redirected to Clown

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose as WP:POINT. ElinorD (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. —Random832 18:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this proposal? Oppose. LessHeard vanU 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One might say the same about the remedy by this title that actually is in the proposed decision. —Random832 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest removal - pointy. Will ^(talk) 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose because the proposal would create impermissible cross-namespace redirects. There are probably some other reasons for opposing it, too. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about redirecting them to Rutabaga instead? (Ducks and runs...) *Dan T.* 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't sleep, bad sites will eat me. --B 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites are not hot-linked

8) Attack sites and sites that call attention to Wikipedia Editors instead of Content are not hot-linked and have their hot-links removed. Web sites can still be listed as sources if they pass WP:RS, but click-throughs will not be allowed. This will reduce search through and click throughs. --DHeyward 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. A silly half-assed measure that only calls attention to whichever sites are purposely not hotlinked. Either link them or not, but avoid wimpy halfway measures. (The possible exception would be sites that actually sense a Wikipedia referer and do things like pull up different pages than for others who access them... but there have been workarounds for this such as the use of a redirected link via a third-party site.) *Dan T.* 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. This would have no impact on WP:V or WP:NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Per Dan - also there will be a lot of good faith "repairs" to non-hotlinked addys by the innocents. Handing out warnings/sanctions is not going to help the editorship. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as this would just advertise the BADSITE involved and anyone can copy and paste a link into their web browsers so it would be counter-productive, SqueakBox 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To Opposes My concern is search through links that will archive attack sites and link them to Wikipedia users. It also drives up hits for sites in search engines. There is no reason for WP to increase traffic to these sites. --DHeyward 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If we shouldn't link to a site, it shouldn't be linked to. Obscuring the link so that it can't just be clicked on only serves to annoy people who want to follow it, while changing nothing about linking to an attack site. -Amarkov moo! 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal is to remove the search through and click throughs. It should stop both. When you search a topic with yahoo or google, it shouldn't take you to an attack site through a Wikipedia link in an article. --DHeyward 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Links from Wikipedia are all nofollowed, which I think means that search engines ignore them when determining links to a given site. Thus, linking to something from Wikipedia doesn't change anything about search engine results. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. An article which hot-links some sources, but not those sources which are "attack sites", is not written from a Neutral Point of View. --Alecmconroy 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of Nielsenhayden.com links

Check as of this date (19 Sept 2007) shows 118 links to the Nielsen Hayden website. Note that this site is broken up into a blog (Making Light), the archive of an older blog (Electrolite), and various other writings. I haven't distinguished between them.

Breakdown is as follows:

Articles: 40 links Talk: 34 links User pages: 12 links User talk: 11 links Wiki space: 17 links Wiki talk: 4 links

I don't have an exact breakdown, but sampling suggests that about half of the forty article links are in citations. Seventeen different articles have links, with the largest group in John M. Ford with ten links. Fourteen articles have links on their talk pages. Mangoe 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It must be noted in this regard that Mangoe has finally admitted to being a poster on this website,[13] yet he refuses to say what username he uses there.[14] He is apparently participating in this ArbCom case as an advocate for the site. He may have even participated making derogatory personal remarks, one of which he chose to re-post on this page. Yet he writes: ;The big issue around pseudonymous editing is, of course, that it can be used to cover malign editing."[15] Yes, that may indeed be an issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Attributing motives to people and smearing them with labels like "participant in an attack site" does no good and offends against the spirit of WP:NPA, a bad thing for supporters and defenders of that policy to do. It's made particularly weird in this case by the fact that the site you're smearing him for participating in is currently being argued by people on the anti-attack-site side as not being an attack site, and in fact people are arguing that it's a straw man to even claim that a problem with BADSITES is that it gets used against sites like that one, because that's a clear mistake and not a mainstream application of that policy. *Dan T.* 03:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What motive am I attributing? Whatever his motivation, he's advocating for the site. Do you think it's consistent to defend outing other editors while insisting on owns own anonymity? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My only advocacy for the site is noting that it is used in numerous citations. I don't feel it is up to me to second guess them. And as far as defending "outing", I do believe that there are situations where it is appropriate-- and so does anyone who has ever identified someone else as a sockpuppet. Do I think that her link to ED was appropriate? Well, I wouldn't have done it. You don't seem to quite get that I found both of you distasteful in this.

And to be more precise, I made three responses in the comments in question. I am not a regular poster there, or for that matter a regular reader. I only found the post in question because you set off the BADSITES klaxons. The post which links to ED is signed "Teresa Nielsen Hayden", and while it is certainly possible I am misremembering, I recollect that it was always that way. Mangoe 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed at least some of these as poorly sourced negative material about living individuals. There is a problem here that fans of Nielsen-Hayden seem to like linking her opinions in articles, but without any credible sources to indicate the significance of those opinions. Blogs have no editorial review process, anything, however trivial, can go in. This does not apply to critique published in reliable sources. We should not e including bloggers' comments about things on their blogs, even if the bloggers are notable authorities, without some independent verification that this is considered a notable view rather than some personal hot button. Even the most respected people can have blind spots; by going direct to the primary source we risk escalating the significance of views which are way out of line with mainstream thinking. We, as editors, are not allowed to make the calla s to whether X's vies on something are considered right on the money or uncharacteristically kooky. Without an independent review of the view, we shouldn't be including it. That's what being a tertiary source is all about, as I understand it. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this means much without an informed discussion of the Nielsen Haydens' actual expertise in a number of areas. Patrick Nielsen Hayden, for example, just won a Best Editor Hugo award. This does not come out of nowhere.

I have read various discussions be WIll BeBack and others on what might rightly be considered Teresa Nielsen Hayden's areas of expertise, and it is my professional opinion as a member of the publishing community that many of these are based largely upon ignorance and/or are assessments made by people without knowledge in the area in question.

Blogs in general have little or no editorial review process, however both of the primary authors of Making Light are highly regarded professional editors, and so to claim the blog has "no editorial review process" is silly. No, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. But most sources cited in Wikipedia aren't.--Pleasantville 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer, a known Nielsen Hayden associate.

Like I said, we don't have any independent sources for whether this is one of their respected-editor views or one of their kooky personal views. That's why we need secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Example: Beback has claimed that TNH's status as a professional editor does not give her expertise on literary agenting. This is silly. It is an acquiring book editor's job to become expert on literary agents because the editor is usually the liason between the publishing house and the author's agent. Beback seemed unaware of the nature of the job. I don't care whether you buy her opinions on cat hoarding. That's up to you. But there has been real relectuance to grant her authority on anything, and that simply appears meanspiritied (as does using the word "kooky" in this context; perhaps you meant something like idiosyncratic?). --Pleasantville 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the diff in which I made that assertion? I don't recall the context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can dig up my email to you from the round of correspondence which J Wales set up to try to make things right. Just a sec. I wrote to you and explained why you were incorrect. This example is a shorter version of that. --Pleasantville 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. Letter to Will dated June 1st, ccing Jimmy Wales, Cory Doctorow, & TNH (parties to the discussion), my letter in its entirety:

One final comment. (I hope.)

I looked a bit into the backstory here regarding the BarbaraBauer thing. I am not an expert on BarbaraBauer, so I won't assess one way or the other the accuracy of the actual text of the Wikipedia article that generated an earlier dispute between Will Beback and Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

I am struck by Will's comments in the deletion discussion: "Delete. I don't see how this person meets any of the standards set out in WP:BIO. Inclusion on a list does not establish notability. Filing a lawsuit does not, by itself, establish notability. While some of the references used are reliable (a college alumni magazine, for example), they don't establish notability. The simple fact is that literary agents are not generally notable unless they've been the subject of articles. There are twenty entries in the "Writers Beware" list, and I don't think anyone would argue that we should have articles about each one. This person has only been the subject of blog entries that aren't reliable sources. Regarding a comment by user:Crotalus horridus, I dispute his contention that Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a reliable source. She is an expert on the topic of editing, not on the topic of literary agents. Furthermore, she has used Wikipedia as a soapbox to disparage some people in violation of WP:BLP (See Roger Elwood [2]) and to promote others, including herself and her husband, in violation of WP:COI. For those reasons we should be very careful about using Nielsen Hayden as a source or a judge of notability. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)"

Back when my jobs were in publishing, most were with literary agencies, so I do claim some expertise here. The key line in this passage is: "She is an expert on the topic of editing, not on the topic of literary agents."

For Will to write that suggests that he lacks an understanding of the editor's job in trade fiction publishing. Part of a trade publisher's job is dealing directly with literary agents to contract for the book; the editor traditionally negotiates the contract with the agent and is the liaison to the agent for the publisher. Also, tradition dictates that the agent go through the editor with any requests for other departments at the publishing house regarding publicity or cover art or sales figures. So it is part of an editor's job to develop expertise on agents.

TNH has a hobby of investigating agents whose practices deviate from what is ethically acceptable in the agenting and editorial community as a whole. Inasmuch as there can be experts on scam agents, she is one.

It seems to me that the real issue on that entry, as far as Wikipedia goes, is original research, not whether TNH is an expert.

I don't fully understand the Wikipedia rules on "attack" pieces, but the fact that there are substantially populated categories in WIkipedia devoted to conmen and criminals invites those of us who have investigated what they believe are real conmen and criminals to share the available information.

Perhaps there need to be some more clearly written guidelines on that.

So the comment in question was in the deletion discussion; more broadly, I saw your comment in the past few days saying something along the lines that a large portion of the links to Making Light were inappropriate because it wasn't an approrpiate source. My impression is that my June 1st letter did not cause any modification in your opinion. --Pleasantville 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[EC] We don't need to quote private emails, I found an instance when I said just what you asserted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination). In that article, blog entries by TNH were being promoted as a reliable source for extremely negative remarks due to TNH's personal expertise, apparently about all aspects of publishing and writing but on literary agents in particular. During discussion on the article talk page it came to light that there was sufficient personal history between Nielsen Hayden and Bauer, a literary agent, to call TNH's neutrality into question. Regardless of her purported expertise in topics where she has no formal training, we do not allow any blogs (except those of hte subjects) to be used as sources for biographies of living people. The view that experts can write articles with no reference to verifiable information is contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, yet that's exactly what we've got with Roger Elwood. Bizarrely enough, the current biography is mostly sourced to the unsourced Wikipedia article that TNH wrote.[16] However the issue of who is an expert and how blogs by experts should be handled is not really a topic of this dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The treatment of the Nielsen Haydens is certainly part of the discussion. I think I also wrote to you on the subject of Elwood, citing an academically published book with an essay involving Elwood by me and one by my husband, David Hartwell that is relatively scarce, since proceedings of academic conferences are not widely distributed. It could have sourced the entry mostly as TNH wrote it.

It is my impression that TNH was unaware of the book the existence of the book. But I am confident in her expertise on the subject because I know she had access to the same research materials I used for my academic paper; I believe she was present when I listened to the tape recording of a panel on which Elwood gave a sales pitch, and also I know she discussed Elwood with literary agent Virginia Kidd, his first collaborator on anthologies.

I am disappointed that the time I spent writing to you to ameliorate the dispute seems to have had so little impact. --Pleasantville 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your letters did indeed ameliorate the dispute, which ended. As for writing biographies of living people, a published book is a fine source. A discussion that an editor had with an agent is not a suitable source. Even with stellar sources, the article that TNH wrote about Elwood did not have an encyclopedic tone. For example, she inserted (and reinserted when it was deleted) a derogatory joke. Jokes just don't belong in encyclopedia articles, especially those about living people. TNH is undoubtedly expert on editing science fiction. Claims of expertise beyond her field need to be supported, preferably by credentials. It isn't true that experience in a field automatically gives a person expertise in related fields. OTOH, if you've written a book on Elwood then you may be accorded a presumption of expertise. But again, I don't see how this is relevant to the question of how to categorize and handle attack sites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have entered this discussion is that your remarks over the course of the Request for arbitration suggest to me that you are trying to nibble your way beck to a position that your actions in the TNH matter were reasonable and justified, rather than manifestations of a loss of temper. Also, I am really disturbed by the deragatory tone used by yourself and other editors taking your side to discuss the site Making Light and those of us who contribute to its comment section. These seem to me to breach WP rules of civility. This is not a fringe group and we are being talked about as though we were fringie stalkers. I request a more respectful tone. --Pleasantville 12:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sites that intentionally engage in harassing Wikipedia users are attack site, IMO, while sites that remove harassing material when requested are not. Sites that include coarse language and personal attacks on Wikipedia editors are not necessarily attack sites. I said at the time, and have said again in this case, that I erred by not contacting the webmaster first, and by failing to work with the community on the resolution. I wouldn't call the blog an attack site so long as they continue to remove harassing material but it's worth noting that some of the participants and webmaster use derogatory language about at least three different Wikipedia editors. However mere criticisms or even rude remarks are not within the scope of this case. I don't believe that I've said anything uncivil, but if there are specific instances that can be pointed to I'd be happy to review them and respond. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Will: You and I are not going to agree on this point, but I will make one last attempt to bring you into line with what I understand to be the WP codes of civility. I believe your whole line of discussion concerning whether Mangoe (?) contributed a comment to the site at some point is uncivil and inappropriate. You may not see it that way. And I also think your attempts to justify removal of links to Making Light are inappropriate for reasons I've already explained. Again, you may disagree. I don't wish to rehash and reargue the matter. I just want you to stop sniping at TNH and at her website.

These tangents seem to me also to be off topic, in that what is supposed to be at issue here is creating a workable policy; the Making Light example cannot be held up as an approach that worked.

There are a large number of people who both contribute to the comment section on Making Light from time to time and also edit Wikipedia from time to time who have nothing to do with your conflicts with TNH. This discussion should not be transformed into hearings on un-Wikipedian activities.

That having been said, I'll let this rest, since I've made my point. --Pleasantville 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks who post here the personal attacks that were made on other websites by other people insert themselves into the conflicts from which those attacks arose. Folks that support and contribute to websites that harass users are effectively condoning harassment. I'm not sniping at anyone, and I don't think I've made any uncivil remarks. If I have please point them out. This case is exactly about the intersection between actions that occur off-Wikipedia and how those should effect actions on-Wikipedia. In some respects, the Making Light case is an example, albeit imperfect, of how attack site resolutions can work. A site posted harasing material, they were asked to remove it, and they did. Hence the site may be viewed as acting in good faith to avoid intentional harassment. While there was additional drama along the way, that's the resolution I think we'd hope for in most of these cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks that support and contribute to websites that harass users are effectively condoning harassment. That is an absurd statement and I hope you refactor it. Participating on a website without engaging in an activity, or even knowing it is taking place cannot be seen as condoning the activity. Especially when the very idea of it being harassment is being challenged. If you are not with us you are against us? --SevenOfDiamonds 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that I can phrase it better: Folks that support and contribute to websites that they know harass users are effectively condoning harassment. Thanks for the suggestion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of action in Theresa Nielsen Hayden case

The timing of the TNH case needs some closer examination, as follows:

• 5 May 2007: TNH makes a blog post which begins: "That’s it. I hereby give up on Wikipedia. It’s doomed. "
• 6 May 2007: Cory Doctorow (who edits Wikipedia as User:Doctorow) adds a comment mounting a partial defense of Wikipedia.
  • Later that day, TNH adds a long comment in which she attacks/complains about Will Beback, by name.
• 9 May 2007: TNH adds an extremely brief comment linking to ED as a source for Will Beback's name.
• 27 May 2007: Will Beback erases the link to Making Light from Teresa Nielsen Hayden with edit summary rm attack site[17]. This is the first change to the article since 1 May 2007.
  • 32 minutes later, User:Doctorow reverts the change.[18] 21 minutes later the erasure is repeated and the edit war begins.
  • Just before midnight I add a comment to the TNH thread noting the erasures. The last comment before that is dated 23 May.
• 28 May 2007: I add a summary of the BADSITES battle in the TNH blog comments.
  • That afternoon TNH reported receiving a letter from Will Beback.
• 29 May 2007: TNH erases all mentions of Will Beback's name in the thread, reportedly after receiving a request from Wales. I believe that the link to ED was smudged/erased at this time, but was restored at some unknown later date.

Note that eighteen days passed between the posting of the offending link and the first erasure. By this time fifteen additional entries had been made in TNH's blog.Mangoe 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I added this because it needs to be understood that the offending "outing" sat around for quite some time before it was acted upon. I can only presume that Will Beback only found about about it some two weeks after the fact. It seems to me that this mitigates the accusation of harassment, seeing as how there isn't any sign that anyone made much of an effort to communicate to Will Beback that anything had been said about him. Mangoe 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep harping on this issue. Are you saying, by extension, that if I call you names on a Wikipedia page that you don't know about, it isn't a personal attack?

Also, since you keep bringing this up, it's worth mentioning that TNH posted a link to material that had been deleted from ED. So Making Light is willing to post information that even ED finds objectionable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you keep using the word "harass". Is it harassment if you don't find out about it? Yeah, I suppose that calling you names is in some sense an "attack", but the fact that it took you two weeks to find out about it demonstrates a certain lack of immediacy. Purity of discourse would be nice, but it can hardly be expected in the net at large. So if someone posts such an attack, and I don't hear about it, I don't really care; and I don't go looking for trouble by trying to find people attacking me. Mangoe 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point. If I post an attack on another editor who doesn't find it for two weeks, does that mean the attack isn't incivility or harassment? If Wikipedia posts libelous material on a living person who doesn't find it for two weeks, do we say to that person "what's the big deal, it's been there for weeks without you noticing"? How does it matter whether the harassment is discovered in two hours, two weeks, or two months? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? (And I'm not being sarcastic.) See, this is yet another example of how one has to know this stuff is there in order to even find it. I've been going back and forth through the comments in question, and I had never noticed this link. Indeed, I'm not sure I could find it even with this clue. I have to question how offensive I have to take this stuff to be if I can't even find it without a lot of direction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)

Or, this is another example of someone posting opinions and "facts" in a case that he hasn't bothered to fully research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that I was expected to go searching out dirt on you, WBb. Indeed, I find it peculiar that you should insist that I do so; one would think that you would prefer I not read it, since that, after all, is the objective of de-linking. I object to the amplification of every negative word into "harassment".

Nor is reading it important to my point, which is, after all, that it is hard to find. There is the practical question here of balancing the interest you (I assume inadvertently) generated in her comments against the likelihood that they would be read by others if you said nothing. It seems to me that if you hadn't done anything, few people (other than some regular readers of her blog) would have seen what she said about you, much less come upon the link; whereas the erasure sent a lot of people to her blog to verify that the "attack" existed and to assess whether it merited the erasure.

Finally, all the facts I recounted are taken directly from histories here and in her blog. I did not cite the latter, because my experience has been that when I have done so, the BADSITES supporters erase my arguments and harass me for POINTED editing. But it is easy enough to find the post in question and find the comments I've noted above. If you wish to expand the timeline, be my guest. Mangoe 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get your point about this posting. What does it matter how many days passed before the target becomes aware of the harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That it wasn't harassment. As far as I know (and given the circumstances, I believe you would have mentioned it should it have happened) nobody called you or sent you messages pestering you about the "attack". She expressed a negative opinion of you in the (semi-)privacy of her own blog, and that appears to have been all. The case lacks the note of persistent willful annoyance that "harassment" implies. Mangoe 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is TNH's recollection from May 28th about the incident. Link removed upon request here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#Request

I didn't hear about this latest Wikipedia blowup until late last night. Along with the news came an unpleasant letter from Will BeBack, saying that my motives for talking about him at Making Light were obviously malicious, which is untrue, and I don't see how it can have been an honest error on his part. I gather he's labeled Making Light an "attack site" (which is loony), and on the basis of that characterization has deleted all Wikipedia links to Making Light, whatever their subject.

I think a more accurate description would be that I did something which displeased Will BeBack, and that his immediate response was not peaceable. I'm not keen to go on the warpath, but I've never responded well to being told "Hello, you're Belgium."

I would never have taken the slightest interest in Will BeBack if he hadn't been harassing me and Patrick on Wikipedia. When I looked into having that problem arbitrated, I discovered that WB's a high-ranking Wikipedian, so I concluded it was useless for me to protest his harassment. I also concluded that it was useless for me to try to have any substantial participation in the Wikipedia project.

I remained mildly curious about the identity of Will BeBack. A little while after I made the original post that started this thread, I casually googled on his pseudonym. It didn't take a lot of looking for me to find an old mention of his real name via Google cache. It had been discussed in Encyclopedia Dramatica: an irresponsible site, but the information itself sounded real enough. I linked to that page. Later in the thread I mentioned that the site had gone down, and a couple of commenters supplied the name.

That's all.

The quote is from the Making Light Blog and was posted by TNH. I am not TNH - the quote is not by me. Uncle uncle uncle 02:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This comment is the one I mentioned from the afternoon of the 28th in the timeline above. Mangoe 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it further our discussion on attack sites? Are you guys saying that a cordial edit dispute is a justification for off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some could read the TNH description of the incident to suggest a possibility that TNH did not intend to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors. Uncle uncle uncle 15:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks who come away with that interpretation would have to be ignorant of the many crude personal attacks hosted by Making light on several Wikipedia editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Then don't read them! Mangoe 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So if I post personal attacks about you, the answer is just that you shouldn't read them, then they won't be uncivil? I find that logic to be, well, bizarre. I suppose the analogous solution to handling vandalism is just to avoid reading any pages that have it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps folks can judge for themselves - I included TNH's quote as evidence of her feelings on the matter. When asked in a polite, reasonable note, she expunged names from the blog. But yes, there was a post stating "pseudonymity has meant for little transparency and little personal investment in being a decent human being on the site" Uncle uncle uncle 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep looking, there are still other crude attacks on Wikipedia editors who were simply helping the project. Personal attacks + outing = harassment. Thankfully, the site in question removed the outing material, more or less completely, so it is just a historical example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

The big policy issues

1) The central issue is over the relationship between Verifiability and Neutral point of view on the one hand, and No personal attacks and editor anonymity on the other. The history of WP:BADSITES has been, in practice, a bold enforcement of the latter against the former, based upon the character of Encyclopedia Dramatica and on the unqualified language in the oft-cited MONGO case finding. The history of most such disputes has been the eventual restoration of the offending links after campaigns to get the sites in question to erase the problem material. Many editors insist that the Big Three policies take precedence over anonymity and NPA.

What is most needed from ArbCom is a clarification of how these policies relate to each other in the context of the kind of conflicts we have seen here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a way to put some direction in this discussion. Mangoe 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is the central issue. --Alecmconroy 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. *Dan T.* 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bzzzzt! Wrong. The problem is actually misidentification of attack sites. No attack sites have been presented in evidence which are reliable sources. This false dichotomy is apparently being used as a way of trying to undermine the perfectly sound principle that offsite attacks are no more acceptable than on-site attacks. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In the instance that set this particular round off, ASM.net was identified by everyone as a bona fide attack site. We even have secondary sources to that effect. The problem in its case is that, since it is an attack site, there was a campaign to keep its name out of the article, raising sourcing and POV issues.

The issue that you raise here is also a problem, and it also has to be addressed. But addressing it doesn't resolve all the issues. Mangoe 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bzzzzt!"? Whatever... This brings us to the very problem with the use of "site" - if we simply use the phrase "offsite attack" and drop any reference to the hosting site then it is interchangable with on-site attacks and can be dealt with accordingly. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If we could stick to the wording of not linking to attacks, I think the issues would be very minimal. But we have fought for five months over the distinction between "attacks" and "attack sites", so I don't see that as an exit strategy. Mangoe 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believed it worthwhile to bring it up again, since the title of this section is "The big policy issues" and, as you say, it has been a consistent proposal made by may individuals for some time. LessHeard vanU 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What we hope to gain

2) A secondary purpose of this case is to establish a better definition of policy as it currently stands so as to avoid unnecessary controversy over the inclusion of links, with respect to citations and other external links in articles, and in general discussion on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I've had several remarks from Guy that I tend to interpret as saying that the flurry of controversy in each case wasn't really so bad. I disagree. It has become a substantial nuisance to have to keep refighting much the same argument over and over. A good ArbCom clarification could go a long way towards cutting these fights short or even forestalling them altogether. Mangoe 15:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

...Which is why we need a clarification of what constitutes an attack site. A workable definition would be: a site which substantially or habitually engages in harassment or outing. Since the sites listed here as having caused friction, e.g. michalmoore.com and donmurphy.net, do not meet that definition, that would have served to halt those wars. Next on the list: a willingness by those with an ideological commitment to linking attack sites need to accept the WP:BRD model. And no, that doesn't mean they boldly revert remval of the link and then shout hysterically that there was no discussion. We err on the side of caution whenever living individuals are involved, as per Jimbo's many statements on WP:BLP and related matters. It costs nothing to leave it for a couple of days while consensus forms - and if consensus really is as strong as some make out, it won't even be that long. So: a commitment by the experienced Wikipedia users engaged in these battles to behave more responsibly, plus a clarification to stop people misidentifying attack sites, will in my view almost certainly fix the problem. Unless, of course, some people are absolutely intent on linking sites which really are attack sites. In which case they will need to campaign for policy changes to allow harassment, stalking, attacks and grandstanding by banned users, since that's normally the problem with the attack site links. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

...assuming that we even need to address this on a per-site basis. (The notion of "site" is often a bit vague, as in the TNH case, where there are several different kinds of content within one domain.) I'm open to the notion that, for practical reasons, we may have to identify some sites as verboten; I'm also inclined to suggest that this may need to be addressed as a policy issue. The history of attempts so far indicates that coming up with an attack sites policy isn't going to reach consensus, but that process keeps getting stymied by the resort to the MONGO finding as an ex cathedra inarguable dogma. Ideological commitment is rife in this; it is hardly confined to Dan Tobias the detractor side. Mangoe 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Guy, we don't. We want to be able to remove links to off-Wiki personal attacks, backed by policy and ArbCom, and to judge whether links to sites that have or do host such content should be allowed under the same criteria as any other link. Formulating a definition of "attack site" presumes that it is a criteria by which a decision on linking may be made, which contention failed to achieve consensus per BADSITES and is being contested both at WP:NPA and here. That some sites may be banned, per the MONGO decision, is best dealt with similar as under the specific circumstances of that ruling. LessHeard vanU 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)