Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Initiated by Fred Bauder at 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) at the request of Daniel Brandt[reply]

Involved parties

Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

For Daniel Brandt: aware via email.
For Gamaliel: talk page notification
Arbcom contacted me today after I was added as a party to the proceedings. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable, really

Statement by Daniel Brandt

I was indefinitely blocked by user Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 for alleged legal threats. I feel that this blocking was unjustified. It was never fully explained, and over the last year some have interpreted this unjustified block as a "community ban." For example, this indefinite block by Gamaliel is defined as "Banned by the Wikipedia community" on Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users.

I am confused by the difference between an indefinite block and a community ban, except that the latter phrase seems defamatory if it is untrue. This difference needs to be clarified in my case. On the page cited above, as well as on the template on my user page, it says that I am "banned." In the block log itself, it says that I am blocked indefinitely. What is my status? Does anyone know?

I am interested in either getting this block/ban lifted by the Arbitration Committee, or getting a complete statement from Gamaliel as to why the indefinite block was justified. If the latter, a statement from the Arbitration Committee that they concur with Gamaliel is requested. At that point, I will formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to confirm or reject the Arbitration Committee's position.

This block has prevented me from expressing objections to my biography, in violation of WP:BLP. The initial impetus for Gamaliel's block, as far as I can determine, was that I had a template on my user page that pointed out a new law signed by President Bush in January, 2006. This law involves criminal penalties for certain types of online harassment. I maintain that it was entirely appropriate to point this out on my user page.

Comment by Doc glasgow

What is this supposed to achieve? I've always though that the desire of certain sectors of the community to paint Brandt as some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein hate-figure was crass and overrated his impact on Wikipedia. I'm also on record as believing we should delete his biography, as 1) he isn't that notable 2) he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have negative biographies of nonentities where they clearly object 3) I hate the bloody-mindedness that seems to want to spite and punish him by keeping it. Wikipedia isn't a role-playing game where we invent and fight imaginary daemons. Having said all of that, the notion that we resolve any of those issues by unblocking him is ridiculous. It just won't work, and isn't worth contemplating as a way forward.--Doc^g 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this ruleslawyering over whether this is a community ban or not is really just bureaucrapic nonsense. Unless we are really seriously considering that unblocking him might be an option, it is pointless. I'm not so much against unblocking him as certain that we are not going to do it. So, unless arbcom are willing to review the wisdom of the decision to retain his bio (and I'd love you to do that, but you won't) then there is sod all point in accepting this case. All we're going to have is more wikidrama then a return to the status-quo. Unless the committee is really willing to break new ground here (and you won't be), then just reject this and be done with it.--Doc^g 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Sir Fozzie's remarks below perfectly sum up the problem. A myopic and obsessive concern for the in-house role-playing game and that its sacred procedures aren't threatened by some dark conspiracy of Fred Bauer and the 'odious' Mr Brandt.--Doc^g 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I share Doc glasgow's general view on this, but I recommend acceptance in order to find that the Brandt article should be permanently deleted. Brandt may be unbanned if there is reason to believe that he will not disrupt Wikipedia (I'm personally veering towards the "no" on this). --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous comment by PullToOpen

Once again, our community has been split neatly up the middle by the issue of this guy's article, let alone his ban. Although the article isn't specifically within the scope of this request (which is nothing but a ban appeal), I feel that the scope of this arbitration case should be expanded to include it. We ought to put this issue to rest so we can stop bickering about it and get back to work with the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that the ArbCom hear this case. // PTO 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I wasn't as into the minutiae of Wikipolitics when this ban went down. Thus, I don't know the context of the legal threats, and I'm not sure if they existed, still exist, or will come in the future. With this said, I urge acceptance of this to review the situation and either affirm the ban in place (which is not a "community ban" as we know it or as really understood), or overturn the ban that's in place as improper. There's probably a logical fear of repurcussion if anyone does anything regarding Brandt or his article at this point, so to expect an admin to step up and unblock him to overturn the "community ban", as FloNight (talk · contribs) puts it, is (IMO) improper and expects more than anyone really should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)

I feel that there is an urgent need to state my support of Doc's position.

In my view, there is no need or cause to consider Mr. Brandt's direct request to be unblocked, because arguing his position out on the Wiki is not the correct forum for complaints by the subjects of our article and he has in the past demonstrated himself to be a disruptive editor. However, the arbcom need not limit itself to directly doing as Brandt asked or nothing: There is clearly an underlying issue at play here involving the conduct of many in Wikipedia's editing community over which the Arbcom has suitable jurisdiction.

I am very concerned that the offhand dismissal of this complaint send the wrong message about the official position Wikipedia's community leaders on Mr. Brandt. Furthermore, this rejection by arbcom leaves Mr. Brandt little further recourse beyond litigation against the editors of Wikipedia, which would be significantly against our own interests ,and the Wikimedia Foundation, which would be unsuccessful but would be an unfortunate waste of everyone's time.

A significant number of Wikimedians believe that Brandt's article is so bad that it must be deleted, but not enough yet to get the supermajority required to actually keep it deleted. It seems that because some Wikimedians have decided to use the article as an example of our independence and freedom of speech that no consensus can be achieved.

Mr. Brandt has made an effort here, respecting our community with an olive branch by appealing to the English Wikipedia's designated highest power over the community (vs the foundation which avoids community involvement). We should not disrespect his efforts with such a curt dismissal.

Finally, since arbcom desysoped some of the Wikipedia admins who would keep the article deleted, it can be argued that the arbcom is a primary cause of the articles continued existence. I do not believe this was the arbcom's intent, so an actual judgment on the article and the editors surrounding it might be useful. --Gmaxwell 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)

I am very concerned that this is an attempt to do an end run around the consensus of the community on the countless number of properly closed AfD debates, in an attempt to delete an article they have a problem with. Mister Brandt has always had a method to deal with BLP violations, despite his banned status, and that is to email the WP Foundation. That does not change, no matter how odious the behavior of Brandt and his supporters. Mister Brandt has had numerous opportunities to work WITH WP, and chose not to. Indeed, he is the lead behind the "Hive Mind" site and Wikipedia Review, two organizations inherently inimical to Wikipedia. I urge the ArbCom to reject this ArbCom request, reject the attempt to cynically circumvent WP procedures to delete Mister Brandt's article, and to affirm his Ban. SirFozzie 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

ArbCom should accept this as it is the only avenue of appeal. Rarely will an admin undo another admin's action as it is potentially a wheel warring situation. The main question is what will Daniel Brandt contribute to the project that justifies the unblock? If it is to provide input/guidance on privacy as it relates to biographies and to give input on various BLP's and policies, I think his unblock is warranted and should be welcomed. If it is to simply edit his own biography, I don't think his unblock will last very long. --Tbeatty 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikipedian that wishes to remain anonymous

Tbeatty has this right. In the current atmosphere, social pressure virtually gaurantees that no admin will unblock those blocked by another admin. On the chance that they do any action on a controversial block, it is gauranteed they will be accused of wheel-warring, and in the resulting flame wars and dispute resolution they face potentially losing their admin bit. Thus, that no one has unblocked Brandt does not provide evidence of wide consensus for a community ban. It only shows one admin did something controversial and no one wants to question it. Yes, the social pressure is so great that even questioning certain actions by certain adminis will engender a loss of reputation in the community.

The arbitrators below saying there is a "community ban" are putting up a billboard proclaiming there is a Hivemind that no-one may question. ArbCom should be a neutral source and they should stand above the crowded mob. Appeals should be viewed neutrally, otherwise there are no checks and balances to the social pressures of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.55.53 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr. Gustafson

My original block of Mr. Brandt, 17 months ago today, was the result of nearly a month of legal threats and abusive use of sock-puppets by Mr. Brandt to vandalize, troll, and disrupt Wikipedia. The straw that broke the camel's back was his hive-mind page, utilized to stalk and violate the privacy of our contributors. Brandt's main account was banned because of this. I do not see this ban as particularly controversial, or as a "community ban." He had no history of positive contribution, spent his short time here prior to the block aggressively disrupting, vandalizing, and attacking, and he never had any intention to positively contribute to our Project. We ban users like this, without issue, every day, as we should. He was unblocked to be given a chance to contribute, but resumed his disruption on-wiki, and cyber-stalking and legal threats off-wiki.

Outside of my involvement in the original block, in my opinion of the issue as it now stands, Brandt being allowed to contribute is a non-issue: he had many chances, and continues to violate our policies to a shocking degree. He has the same rights in terms of BLP as any, and has the right to express concerns over the content of the article on him through the channels that have been set up specifically for such concerns, specifically through the Foundation Offices. However, he has no right to be a part of this community. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

He uses various IP's to edit wiki already, showing up now and then to edit the his bio. If his concern was truly to help Wikipedia, he would do so, yet I see zero evidence his edits are constructive overall. I find him hardly notable, so the bio on him outweighs the benefit of having it. Regardless, his animosity about anonymous administrators and other issues makes him unlikely to suddenly become a great contributor.--MONGO 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Mr. Brandt's personal website is the most prominent and extensive effort to out the real-world identities of Wikipedians. Sitebanning is the normal response for that type of behavior. If Mr. Brandt were to take down that page and pledge not to renew it I might understand a basis for this arbitration request. As things stand this looks like a question about semantics. Mr. Brandt does evade the ban on IP addresses, as demonstrated here from 29 March 2007.[1] The issue of Mr. Brandt's Wikipedia biography is a separate matter and I'm not certain whether it falls within the scope of Committee action. I'd be willing to support a courtesy deletion (but haven't participated in any of those discussions one way or the other). Durova^Charge! 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a delicate procedural suggestion: Mr. Brandt's statement expresses a wish to have his status clarified (blocked or banned). Clarification could be accomplished through a formal community ban discussion at WP:CN without the Committee's involvement. I don't wish to worsen a situation that is already dismal, so I offer to open a request there and would do my best to maintain a civil discussion. Mr. Brandt may contact me via my Wikipedia e-mail if he is interested in this option. Durova^Charge! 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect relevant to this proposal is this thread. It is hard for me to fathom why anyone would contemplate restoring Mr. Brandt's editing privileges while he publishes the identities of Wikipedians who prefer to edit pseudonymously. Although that particular community ban thread is the first time a psychiatric patient has developed a sexual fixation on me, it is not the first time an editor has made personal threats against me. I make every effort to interact with people politely and to apply site policies fairly, yet I become a target for no other reasons than that I am a female sysop. Yesterday I also issued a lengthy userblock on another disturbed individual who had threatened suicide, and that was not the first editor I dealt with who claimed to be suicidal. I am very glad these individuals do not know my actual identity and I am rather disappointed that there exists any controversy at all on this matter. Mr. Brandt, I hold no personal animosity toward you, but please respect the perspective of dedicated volunteers - I've put a lot of unpaid labor into this site because I think Wikipedia has a worthwhile mission. If you desire the community's cooperation please meet us halfway. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FCYTravis

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to review the article and its surrounding circumstances. I am in full agreement with Doc glasgow and Gmaxwell here, as I believe that some Wikipedians have tried to turn this sordid affair into a video game, where Daniel Brandt must somehow "lose" so that Wikipedia can "win." I do not believe that such a stark dichotomy exists - we can be a complete encyclopedia without becoming a scandal sheet for living people.

I believe that Brandt has played into his opponents' hands with his provocative and ill-advised "hive-mind" site. But that site's existence has distorted the perspective of many Wikipedians, turning it into a passionate and personal issue, which it should not be. As one of the top-10 sites on the Internet, we must rise above petty personal vendettas and consider a broader and more objective perspective. I believe the community can no longer make dispassionate decisions about this case and thus a review of the "community ban" must naturally fall on the Arbitration Committee. It is not a task which ArbCom members may individually relish, but it is a task which the ArbCom as a whole must, in this case, perform. FCYTravis 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Renesis

I have not had much involvement in this matter, but have been observing it for quite a while, and I would like to say that I endorse the statement by Durova. -- Renesis (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by someone else's tedentious sockpuppet

Is this a joke? Seriously, I endorse Durova's statement. This is almost criminal. We're talking about a guy whose website outs the personal information of our dedicated volunteers, and who himself has threatened editors with real-life consequences for doing what they're supposed to be doing on Wikipedia. If there's one thing that really concerns me about Wikipedia, it's that so many people are willing to feed this troll, allowing him to edit and defending him when his actions continue to make Wikipedia worse, and in addition, have real-life implications for hard-working volunteers. If he has concerns about his bio, he can use e-mail like he's been told a million times before. No, I have no strong opinion on keeping or deleting his article and no, I don't think he'll stop if we delete it. But has anyone ever asked him directly?

Apparently, one of his backers is Fred Bauder. This is not the first time I've questioned Mr. Bauder's judgement here... He's the one who wanted Yanksox and Geogre banned in the past... I mean, how idiotic is that? He even requested a checkuser on Yanksox to see if he was a sockpuppet of - guess who? - Daniel Brandt. And now he's acting as a proxy for this banned user? Unbelievable. Fred Bauder needs to be removed from this committee, yesterday. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you're reading this: If you can figure out who I am, my real name is on Wikipedia, if you do just a little digging. You can use it to find my address and phone number and continue your mindless hypocrisy. If you haven't already. 75.72.150.178 08:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by someone who shall not be named

If DB wants back into our community, he must take down his "hive-mind" page and apologize to Katefan0 and anyone else he has driven away from this site. If he's here solely for the purpose of deleting his bio, then he can be considered a single-purpose account and should therefore be reverted & blocked on sight. 128.2.152.133 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

I think this case is going down, so I'm probably wasting my time, but under the old system a community ban was, as I remember it, any indefinite block which no admin was prepared to undo. As such, and because of his off-wiki attacks, there is little doubt that it is fair and reasonable to describe Mr. Brandt as banned.

Be it noted that I, too, think the article on Brandt should be deleted and the bytes burned, but I don't see any chance of ArbCom taking an end-run around deletion process for that. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SqueakBox

I am very pleased to see that Daniel Brandt has made this appeal, especially as I was encouraging him to do so. I also pointed out he confusion between being blocked and banned at Talk:Daniel Brandt and see that this also confuses Mr Brandt so this pioint should be clarified and if he is banned not blocked that should be made clearer. I think Brandt should be given another chance but warned that any legal threats on his part will bhe met with a swift permanent block. I think he needs to be able to comment on his own biography at its talk page and should be allowed to edit the Daniel Brandt page as welll as a bare minimum. I urge the arbcom to unblock him and make it clear that he is banned from editing all articles and all talk or other pages except Daniel Brandt and Talk:Daniel Brandt with AE swinging into action were he to break this, SqueakBox 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/7/0/0)

Reject and uphold the community ban. A community ban is when a user is blocked and no other admin is willing to unblock them. All concerns about your article can be addressed by email. FloNight 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, to consider Brandt's exact status in particular and the interaction of BLP with other policies in general. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per FloNight. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept appeal of community ban, consider the status of the article, Daniel Brandt, and the legal issues he has raised, see Rules. Fred Bauder 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The acrimony associated with this case makes standard avenues of appeal very difficult, and everyone does deserve a fair hearing. - SimonP 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject and uphold the community ban, per FloNight. Raul654 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Brandt is community banned until such time as admins start to unblock him, while in possession of the facts. (There is no shortage of facts.) It is not within the ArbCom's remit to consider whether the article on him should exist here. Charles Matthews 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I do not necessarily agree that the rationale expressed by the original blocking admins is sufficient justification for an ongoing ban. However, it is my view that Wikipedians are responsible for their actions off-wiki (c.f. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC). Mr. Brandt's web site, as well as his posts in other public forums, goes well beyond fair criticism by publishing nonpublic contact information for Wikipedia editors. Thus, I would not support overturning the ban. Mr. Brandt above expresses concern that, as a banned user, he has no means of "expressing objections to [his] biography, [the contents of which are] in violation of WP:BLP". However, he is free to share any ongoing concerns he has regarding his biography by email. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Although there are issues surrounding Daniel Brandt's indefinite block which are of some concern, the issue of Brandt's editing privileges is something of a red herring. I do not believe Brandt has any real interest in being a Wikipedia editor. Rather Brandt's real interests are, what I take to be, serious and legitimate concerns regarding the right to privacy and our articles about living people. In particular Brandt wants his own article deleted. I have some sympathy for Brandt's views in this regard, and I share the concerns of FCYTravis and others above, however deciding such issues are simply not within the Arbitration Committee's purview. Paul August ☎ 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, and uphold the community ban, as per FloNight and others. Brandt has other avenues to complain about the content of an article on him; he was finally community-banned having behaved continually in ways that would have earned a ban much more quickly for most others, and has continued to behave unacceptably since. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello, an essay I wrote at Wikipedia:Attack sites was promoted by others to proposed guideline status, and some are questioning the validity of removing links to known/confirmed attack/hate sites, which engage in ongoing harassment and 'outing' of Wikipedia editors and admins. The opposing voices seem to revolve around matters of censorship and conflict of interest (i.e., the harassed are actually going to suppress 'valid criticism'). The essay/proposed guideline is based on this:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Principles

"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." See #Combating harassment
"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." See #Links to attack sites
"Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." See #Support of harassment
"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites

Basically, the clarification I am curious about is whether it is appropriate to remove links to such sites. After this decision, all references/links to the Dramatica site were removed mainly by Fred Bauder, and it seems like the idea--which is just enforcement of existing policy about harassment and NPA--would be valid to other 'attack' or 'hate' sites such as this. Thanks. - Denny ^(talk) 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify it was Denny who made his essay into a policy proposal here and I dont know why he is claiming otherwise (as his action was fine) but I am adding this link to avoid confusion or anyone being mislead by that claim within Denny's above statement, SqueakBox 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which was instantly reverted, and User:Jossi later promoted to proposed guideline. - Denny ^(talk) 18:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Jossi reverted to your promotion. There is niothing wrong with having promoted your essay to a policy proposal so I am baffled why you wont take responsibilty for it, SqueakBox 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue raises the general question of whether it is proper for the ArbCom to effectively make policy that is enforceable against everybody, including those who were not parties to the original case, or whether policy change needs to be brought up for community consensus instead. *Dan T.* 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the latter will prevail, SqueakBox 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, the ArbCom has already ruled that "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I agree 110% with you. In every way. I believe that the ArbCom didn't make any sort of new policy there--simply a statement about enforcement of existing policy, which is that anyone can remove any links to or material imported from attack/hate sites. To be honest, the criticism towards any editors who now do that seems to be based in a rejection of policy, practice, and precedent. Thats why I posted this--to make sure this ruling wasn't being mistinterpreted by me. - Denny ^(talk) 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom arent enpowered to make policy merely to enforce it, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, SqueakBox 23:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...thats what I just said. Their endorsement of removing hateful/attacking content or links was an endorsement of policy. - Denny ^(talk) 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having wasted more than an hour of my life trying to do my best to comment on above gratuitous request, I just have to add to this that requesting ArbCom to intervene seems totally strange at this point. Can't we just act on the assumption that the Arbitration ruling endorsed policy and call it a day? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I am saying! However, it seems like many are questioning the authority of ArbCom on this matter inappropriately. - Denny ^(talk) 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just that they don't know about the ruling. You can link to it if anyone questions you. The point is that such links may be removed by any user without being subject to 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the clarification needed is whether User:SlimVirgin can censor the discussion of WP:BADSITES without regard to content, in effect enforcing WP:BADSITES before it has been approved. There are numerous complaints out now about this. Her threat to block me for disregarding her premature enforcement is a case in point (diff). Mangoe 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm enforcing the ArbCom ruling that says links to these sites may be removed, and that deliberately restoring them could lead to a block. You seem to be engaged in WP:POINT by continuing to restoring one of those links. Please stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of course is that the discussion in WP:BADSITES is essentially a review by the community of the elevation of the finding into policy on the one hand, and a review of the actual nature of what is posted on the Unspeakable Site. If arbcom is willing to affirm your authority to make such excisions, I'll join Dtobias in asking what process there is to overturn the whole thing; but until then, I do not recognize your authority to damage my arguments. Mangoe 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody point to the actual policy that ArbCom was enforcing, if they weren't violating their charter by making new policy? If it doesn't exist (and I've yet to see anybody actually link to it; the proponents of censorship can only point to the ArbCom ruling and to Denny's proposal) then ArbCom acted illegitimately by enforcing it. If it does exist, I'd like to know how to introduce a proposal to repeal it. *Dan T.* 03:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe does raise a valid point, namely that we aren't doing ourselves any favors by blindly reverting, without regards to context, links to content on sites like WR. The fact is that some of those people, motivations aside, do produce some criticism that we should consider and that could be of benefit. Examples being Brandt's copyvio/plagiarism report a while back, and that essay to which Mangoe linked. Some of this can be linked to without having the intent to harass. I don't see any reason to ignore something we can use because of where it was found. Frise 03:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, you're laboring under the misconception that there has to be a specific new policy somewhere. The ArbCom issued a ruling, which said that linking to these sites might attract a block. Before that ruling, admins were already taking action against users adding these links, so the ruling served to confirm current practise. Any editor who disrupts the normal functioning of Wikipedia may be blocked for disruption; any editor who endangers, threatens, or outs, another Wikipedian, or exposes them to harassment, may similarly be blocked. If an admin feels that an editor is deliberately posting attack links in order to highlight an attack site or a particular thread (as opposed to linking in error or without realizing what the site is), that admin may take action. No new policy is required. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No new policy is required? Thank goodness that's settled. Will you mark Denny's proposal as rejected or shall I? :) Frise 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever you want. I'm only confirming that admins have been taking action over this for quite some time, and that the ArbCom ruling supports them. Personally I feel that having a separate policy may not be necessary, but if others want one, that's fine by me too. What I don't understand are the various attempts to cause trouble around it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll let you do it, considering how many threats to block me have been given to me today. But I agree: if we don't need a policy, then we don't need this policy. And I'll be watching for the damage to WP:EXR. Mangoe 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be advantageous to the community if the Arbitration Committee clarifies this decision, for the following reasons:

It is unclear whether a "Principle" is indeed a ruling, or is simply a statement.
While it is clear that Remedies and Enforcements are enforceable, it is not clear whether or not Principles and Findings of Fact are enforceable.
- In particular, the only remedy in this case that referred to removal of website links was specific to Encyclopedia Dramatica, despite the fact that other sites containing similar information were well known to Wikipedia and the arbitrators at the time, and could conceivably have been included in this Remedy.
The Arbitration Committee identified a Principle that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
- It is unclear whether ArbComm was including this Principle as an example of a practice on Wikipedia or a policy on Wikipedia; and if a policy, which policy.
- The ArbComm's definition of an Attack Site in their listing of Principles was "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."
  - Since the time of this decision, at least one Wikipedian's private information has been widely published on dozens of websites that are used as reliable sources in tens of thousands of articles.
  - ArbComm did not differentiate between the publishing of private information about editors who choose to edit anonymously and those who edit using their own names. Articles on many of the dozens of known notable Wikipedia editors contain personal information that may not have been divulged directly by the editor.
There has been a significant change in the interpretation of "real world" law that affects the level of responsibility website owners have for the writings of others within their site.
- It is unclear if this change would make a difference in the ArbComm decision; however, the arbitration policy leaves the door open for the Arbitration Committee to reconsider decisions as new information becomes available.

Respectfully submitted, Risker 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, the principle that was voted through simply means the ArbCom agreed with it. It isn't necessarily reflective of policy. I think you're looking at this a little rigidly, with respect, in trying to draw hard and fast lines between guidelines, policy, principles, rulings. All it means is that the ArbCom agreed to something, and most of the community respects the ArbCom, so most of the community will pay attention to what they said. As for the example you alluded to of Essjay's private information being published around the world, the ArbCom was referring to personal information not revealed by the person themselves. Essjay offered his real name himself, so that is not what is meant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well... it seems that even one of the most vigorous enforcers and defenders of this alleged policy admits that something that gets a majority vote from ArbCom isn't necessarily actually policy. And, if you look at some of the ArbCom deliberation cited below, you'll see that there actually isn't ArbCom consensus on a broad linking ban except in the specific case of Encyclopedia Dramatica (and even that fell short of unanimity). *Dan T.* 12:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "one of the most vigorous enforcers and defenders of this alleged policy." I said above that I don't really see the need for it. I do support the ArbCom ruling, however, which wasn't only about ED. As I said, I think the rules lawyering about what's policy, guideline, a ruling, or a principle isn't really helpful in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly respect ArbComm, which is why I have asked them to clarify their decision instead of taking anyone else's word about what they meant. Different readers have come away from that decision with completely different impressions of what it says and does not say. The appropriate body to determine what is meant is the one that issued the ruling. It is not rules-lawyering to go back to the original source and say "what did you mean?" when developing policy. As ArbComm has recently had an opportunity to revisit some of these points in the Philwelch matter, and did not accept a broad definition of an attack site at that time, it is important to ensure that policy isn't developed based on yesterday's news. And yes, there are differences between guidelines, policy, principles and rulings; if there weren't, they would all be called the same thing, and have the same effect in practice. Bringing the Essjay issue up is not a straw man; as I recollect (but cannot verify due to the entirely appropriate deletions), Essjay never confirmed his "real life" identity on Wikipedia itself. The proposed policy largely based on this ArbComm decision does not say "only people who edit anonymously are protected," it says "Wikipedians." Risker 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. What is policy is a separate issue from what the ArbCom has ruled. Any admin action I take in regard to this is based on the ArbCom ruling, the first one, and on admin practise before that ruling, as well as on admin definitions of disruption that also existed before that ruling. Therefore, there is no policy proposal being based on that ruling. The policy proposal is a completely separate issue. This focus on process is fine so long as you understand that there are two parallel processes here, and so long as you also understand that common sense outweighs both of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense seems to me to be what is being offended against when the not-really-a-policy in question is used to suppress links to "bad sites" even when they are being cited as examples (in an entirely non-abusive way) in a discussion over whether all such links need to be banned. *Dan T.* 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? No policy proposal is being used to "suppress" links. Links were removed in accordance with the ArbCom ruling, but they were being removed before that ruling anyway. I hope that's clear now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that isn't exactly true. The very deletion that brought this to my attention was done following the MONGO decision, referring to WP:BADSITES, which in turn invoked the MONGO case (diff). And the remedies of that case make reference only to Encyclopedia Dramatica. A strict constructionist reading of the case would lead me to say that the only deletions they authorize are those of references to EB; the remedies do not mention Wikipedia Review, nor do they propose a dragnet deletion of any site that someone deems to be an attack site. Your reading of the matter is an act of hotly contested exegesis, which is precisely why it is reasonable to ask arbcom to clarify whether it may be acted upon. Mangoe 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that my personal experience must sound dull next to an "act of hotly contested exegesis," but I can assure you that I was removing these links long before the ArbCom rulings, as were other admins. I didn't do it in any kind of concerted way, but if I happened to see one, I removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Proposed decision may prove enlightening reading for anyone trying to evaluate the ArbCom's more recent deliberations on some of these issues. Kirill Lokshin 11:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that because principle 1.3 regarding attack sites in the more recent Arbitration case didn't pass, the MONGO ruling can no longer be used to enforce deletion of each and every link to an attack site? —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specifically state a position relative to the two? We need a concrete confirmation that ArbCom does not support harassment of Wikipedians, rather than something else that leaves loopholes in personal safety and more endless partisan debate about hate sites. Thanks! - Denny ^(talk) 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did the terminology change from "attack site" to "hate site?" Risker 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, what "we need" is a set of edicts that can be used to support the preordained conclusion that all such links be draconianly suppressed, common sense be damned... and if one has to carefully pick and choose among the different things said in past ArbCom decisions, so be it. *Dan T.* 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is that our editors are protected from harassment in every capacity on-Wiki available as historically supported by long-term admin action. If editors are not protected, we won't have editors and will lose editors. I find your endless support of the hate/attack site WR to be tasteless, as the site is on the same puerile level as the attack wiki that is cited in the MONGO decision. Filth that seeks to harass and hurt Wikipedians. If you support borderline personal terrorism, perhaps your role in the community should be reevaluated by yourself and others. - Denny ^(talk) 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the above as a borderline personal attack on me rather than a constructive discussion of the issues. *Dan T.* 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dtobias supporting WR? You have to be kidding? He is the one who calls them wiki-whiners, hardly a support. I also dont agree either that wikipedia does everything within its power to priotect wikipedia from on-wiki harrassment (and many editors who have left are a proof of this). I dont believe not linking to WR will actually protect wikipedia editors,. I think claiming another user supports borderline terrorism is way out of line, just the kind of completely OTT injustified personal attack I thought we were trying to avooid? SqueakBox 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification of my request for clarification for ArbCom: In other words, the point of this whole mess that some are contesting. My sincere and gravest apologies for even using acronyms of the hate sites, but so there is no confusion: "ED" has portions of their content that is devoted to hurting/attacking/outing/stalking Wikipedians. "WR" has portions of their content that is devoted to hurting/attacking/outing/stalking Wikipedians. If ED is doing the exact same thing that WR is doing, and it is not acceptable to link to ED ever as demonstrated by Fred Bauder, one of the people that excised all links to that site, should it not also extend to WR for doing the exact same actions as ED? Between the two sites, WR passes the duck test as a hate site.

If possible, can we save another dozen replies from the usual suspects? I know Tobias, Mangoe, Squeak, etc. think I and Slim are wrong. We know what you think. You think we are either reading ArbCom and policy wrong or that ArbCom is wrong, etc. I am looking for a reply to this from ArbCom members. If the same principle applies to a given hate/attack site for doing 'X', why wouldn't it apply to another unrelated site that does the same 'X'? - Denny ^(talk) 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspects? Has some crime been committed or is that just another personal attack? By whose definition is WR the same as ED? SqueakBox 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a figure of speech, Squeakbox. WR: has threads to 'out' the true identity of Wikipedians in Good Standing. ED: has articles to 'out' the true identity of Wikipedians in Good Standing. WR: has threads to attack Wikipedians in Good Standing. ED: has articles to attack Wikipedians in Good Standing. They both do 'X' as I stated. Also: Do you have some psychological need since I encountered you on the Brandt article to reply in challenge to EVERYTHING I write related to him or WR? - Denny ^(talk) 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin seems to indicate that encyclopedia dramatica may be linked to in some circumstances. The MONGO arbcom case pretty muched said no to this. I'll be frank here...and this may come across as black and white, but since there is now apparently ambiguity at least to arbcom, I can't thinnk of any other way to word this. Either blanket ban attack sites or let them in completely. The grey area of, well, some links are okay and some aren't will be wikilawyered to death and will lead to never ending arguments.--MONGO 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the main space what you say makes sense, SqueakBox 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed, arbcom is suggesting that linking to these sites is "okay" then what we need is for them to examine existing policy and arbitrate exactly when these circumstances are okay, not some vague and easily wikilawyered determination as seen in the Phil Welch case. Those types of arbcom determinations lead only to anarchy. Are they okay in all namespaces or some namespaces and if so, where and when.--MONGO 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Let the arbitrators reply. - Denny ^(talk) 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Who is stopping the arbcom members replying? Please dont try to suppress legitimate debate on this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "need" for zero tolerance or else we'll be "wikilawyered to death", so, if Professor Plum commits murder with a candlestick in the ballroom, then this shows a need for a complete ban on candlesticks, and perhaps on professors and ballrooms as well; otherwise, everybody will play lawyer games to justify their ballroom murders with candlesticks. The concept of showing some Clue is out of the question, of course. *Dan T.* 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was asking for a further clarification as it pertains to the MONGO arbcom case and if this is also applicable to other websites that also have numerous postings where wikipedians are unnecessarily harassed/stalked and libeled. I recognize that arbcom doesn't declare policy but seeng that there is wikilawyering going on due to interpretations of how the MONGO case is applied to various websites, I was seeking more specific explanations of if/when and where we may or may not link to these websites. If we NEVER link to ED and yet do link to WR (which, arguably, posts even worse attacks and makes no claimant to being a parody website as ED does) then I was asking for clarification on this matter to eliminate any ambiguities.--MONGO 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate is fine and I encourage. Repeating the exact same vapor every time I write anytyhing isn't debate; it's a one-sided shouting contest on your part to dirty the conversational pool. Please stop following me... all over wikipedia before it becomes harassment and stalking and an offense. - Denny ^(talk) 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment? What are you taklking about. Give me one example of me following you around on wikipedia? Seems like your comment is a harrassment of me as I have never harrassed or stalked you, so please desist your out of order personal attacks against me. If you think debating with you is an offence I suggest yoyuy re-read policy, another case of your being a generally naive newbie, but there is no offendce involved in debating with you wherreas your bad faith accusations on this opage accusing one user of being a terrorist and another a cyberstyalker are not acceptable, SqueakBox 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question on the BLP page. You per the edit logs had never touched that page before you replied to me minutes later, your first edit ever there. I don't care if you're following my contributions to contest me at every step of everything I do--your right, I suppose. But be honest about. :) And don't be surprised if it goes on for weeks or months if you find yourself on the other end of arbitration/ANI for harassment. Your jousting against anything I do lately is amusing but if you keep this up much longer it will not be. - Denny ^(talk) 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to respond to this further personal attack except to say I have watchjed BLP considerably longer than Denny has edited here and his accusations are incorrect, without foundation and completely uncalled for, SqueakBox 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can address this on our talk pages. But I have demonstrated that you never once edited that page until I posted a question there. - Denny ^(talk) 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err I didnt post cos I had nothing to say but I watched it from way back due to the Brandt situation, SqueakBox 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shouting contest seems clearly to have two sides to it. I've attempted through various poll questions to get some of the opinions of the silent majority, and so far they don't seem to be backing up your side. *Dan T.* 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by arbitrators

The decision in MONGO is intended to apply to harassment of individuals on sites which are not making a good faith effort to engage in legitimate criticism of Wikipedia or those associated with it, simply smearing Wikipedia and its users. Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to. Many of those who have been banned by the arbitration committee or by the community have ended up there, and continue to voice criticism of our decisions and practices. These criticisms are occasionally useful.

It is inappropriate to attempt to generalize principles expressed and relied on in arbitration into policy. We have make it very clear that we neither honor nor set precedent. This matter nicely illustrates why. The facts and users the "policy" would apply to, often differ sharply from those presented in the arbitration case. I would make this comparison: imagine a meeting, one person comes in and loudly denounces the others attending the meeting. He shouts, gives everyone the finger, and stamps his foot. Contrast this with a situation where a person comes in and dumps a bag of shit on one of the others attending the meeting. One situation is difficult, the other utterly unacceptable, the decision in the MONGO case addresses the unacceptable situation. Fred Bauder 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Wikipedia Review is worse then ED, Fred. ED has a policy of not outing people. They don't always follow it, but it's in place, and if an admin sees a real name in an article, they tend to remove it. They also allow anyone to sign up for an account and edit. WR outs people regardless of any consequence, no matter whether the information is good or bad. If they're asked to take material down, they ignore or ridicule the request. Anyone who objects too loudly with an account is banned. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

ED has abandoned that policy. In line with my goals as an anti-Wikipedia troll </sarcasm>, I've removed names pretty much anywhere I see them (on articles related to WP and those not) and have been blocked for it, twice now. It's even part of the reason I ditched.

And as long as I'm making a legit comment, I might as well take a sec to register my dismay that, once again, ED is being made a big deal out of by people who are pretending to want to limit its influence. Milto LOL pia 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, because it was one of the things that distinguished it from WR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that direct linking to harassment is unacceptable. ("Hey Thatcher, did you see what WR says about you [link]? Ha ha.") Linking to other comments on such sites is not included in the scope of RFAR/MONGO and should be worked out in the normal way on the proposed policy talk page. Thatcher131 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that almost all the threads contain personal attacks. If you link to one apparently innocuous comment, there's bound to be an attack one comment above or below it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ED claims they are essentially a parody site, whereby WR doesn't.--MONGO 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there isn't a need for a policy, just that the arbitrators appear unwilling to extend the MONGO case in the way that some here are seeking. You'll have to work some more on the proposed attack policy. Thatcher131 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It is a hate/attack site. I am dismayed that arbiters would even consider saying, "Its ok to link to a site that goes out of it's way to cause direct personal harm to Wikipedians". - Denny ^(talk) 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, please remain civil in this discussion. You have made a very serious direct accusation here, baldly stating that Wikipedia Review has caused direct personal harm to Wikipedians. If you are going to say such things, you must be prepared to back it with evidence, and show exactly who suffered what harm. I can understand that you are unhappy with this opinion, but this is uncalled for. Risker 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we started linking in all the posts that proves that website has actively engaged in trying to "out" real identities and allows other egregious attacks, then that might help explain why we don't have an article about that website. Due to information posted on WR, either mirrored from some other site or posted there originally, I can think of at least 5 wikipedians who have left or assumed new identities on Wikipedia to avoid the harassment associated with those posts. That the website actively engages as a forum to collaborate in an effort to "discover" who people are in real life is no mystery...it is transparent.--MONGO 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom is there to defend those attack sites. They're all against you.</sarcasm> —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received a blocking warning for a comment on Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, in which I said that I would prefer still being able to link to a certain subpage of WR. I'm not linking to WR here, but to a Google search [2]. I'd really like to know if I could be blocked for linking to that exact subpage within the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, where I tried to use the link to illustrate that not all pages of WR contain attack against specific Wikipedia users. —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't block you. Serious debate is welcome. That is not why folks get banned and end up on WR. Fred Bauder 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mongo, I believe that there is good reason to be more upfront about potential risks to registering an account at Wikipedia. I've just gone and checked the information given about registering accounts, and there is very little about the risks of doing so, and plenty about the benefits. It would be good to have a subpage there discussing things like choice of user name, deciding how much personal information to put on your user page, and the fact that (as one of the most read sites on the internet) Wikipedia cannot guarantee the privacy of any person. I would be willing to work on this, but I have no idea who manages that page. Risker 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect only administrators may edit it but the page is MediaWiki:Signupend. Fred Bauder 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a bad idea, but maybe not "correct" as I might be inclined to think that this might make some people become discouarged about editing here. We mustn't overblow the liklihood that volunteers to this project face a possiblility they will be harassed or stalked...so any wording that suggests the best ways to avoid harassment would need to be addressed carefully.--MONGO 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies: [3] ? This was discussed here: [4], however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "[w]ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.

Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [5] to comical [6]. After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page [7].

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [8] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [9] and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [10] [11] [12].

I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [13]

I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why Bksimonb~~Thatcher131~~ considers Green108's possible off-Wikipedia affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Wikipedia. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Wikipedia and that is the main basis of my complaint [14].

We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself [15] :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.

I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.

BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Wikipedia as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.

Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. Thank you for looking into this. Please let me know if you noticed the following edits (just a sample) and what your views are on them [16] [17] [18] [19].

Thanks Bksimonb 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)