Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Offsite comments and personal attacks		5 July 2013	{{{votes}}}
Alger Hiss		4 July 2013	{{{votes}}}
Linking to Wikipediocracy		2 July 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Offsite comments and personal attacks

Initiated by Mark Arsten (talk) at 23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party

If anyone I've missed wishes to add themselves to this list as a party please go ahead. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This most recent block has been discussed on several user talk pages.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Kiefer's previous block in relation to comments about Ironholds was discussed on ANI:

• [5]

Kiefer was previously the subject of a user conduct Rfc in which civility was one concern:

• [6]

Statement by Mark Arsten

I believe that arbitration is needed in this situation because a dispute between two editors has become unmanageable by the community and is complicated by off-site and revision deleted evidence. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) and Ironholds (talk · contribs) have made several comments about each other on off-wiki forums, and this dispute has spilled over onto Wikipedia, although some of it has been revision deleted. Some of these comments could be seen as personal attacks make reference to violence.

To my knowledge, the dispute between Ironholds and Kiefer has its origin in this thread, after Ironholds endorsed sanctions against Keifer in an unrelated matter. Following this interchange, Kiefer posted critical remarks about Ironholds on an off-wiki discussion forum. In response, Geni (talk · contribs) blocked Kiefer for personal attacks. This block was overturned with community consensus because the comments took place off-wiki. Two weeks later, a concern was raised on a third party's user talk page about comments that Ironholds apparently made about Kiefer on a Wikipedia IRC channel (I haven't verified their authenticity, but I don't think it has been questioned). Ironholds' comments, while apparently a joke, could be seen as expressing a desire for violence. Kiefer made a comment on the talk page that also could be seen as a threat against Ironholds. This comment was quickly revision deleted. Kiefer was then blocked by Kww (talk · contribs) for three months. About 13 hours later Fram (talk · contribs) unblocked him, explaining the action by noting that Kiefer was provoked by an off-wiki comment. Fram also announced his intent to begin blocking for IRC personal attacks in the future.

As the admin actions cited above show, the community has difficulty agreeing on how to respond here. Attempts have been made, but the unusual nature of the situation has complicated them. This is a difficult situation for the community to handle because off-wiki evidence plays a large role. Although off-wiki actions are generally not sanctionable by themselves, in this case they have spilled over on-wiki and are thus may be relevant. I believe that Arbcom should take this case because more noticeboard discussions an additional RFC/U have little chance of solving the problem, which will likely continue to boil over. Given the somewhat disturbing nature of the recent comments, I think this is a dispute that needs to be solved soon.

Alger Hiss

Initiated by CJK (talk) at 13:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• CJK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Joegoodfriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DEddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.52.254.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yopienso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Cline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• See the page Talk:Alger Hiss

Statement by CJK

The users Joegoodfriend, The Four Deuces, AndyTheGrump, DEddy, and the IP have obstructed efforts to insert factual material in the Alger Hiss article in violation of WP:EP, WP:OWN, and WP:FRINGE.

The background is that in April 2013 I began posting on the talk page my astonishment that the article lead ignored/downplayed important evidence against Hiss. After unsuccessful discussion with Joe, I inserted the scholarly, factual material myself (regarding notes from the Soviet archives that confirmed Hiss's guilt) and Joe promptly reverted, starting a revert war. The page was eventually protected and two RFCs occurred both of which did not solve the problem.

In general, the users Joegoodfriend, The Four Deuces, AndyTheGrump, DEddy, and the IP have refused to let the factual information be inserted into the article on the grounds that they and other Hiss partisans do not believe it is factual or conclusive. In the last two months they cannot cite a single scholar from the relevant fields to justify their WP:FRINGE belief in this regard. Although they have given or implied a number of names, it always turns out that either A) they are not scholars from fields relevant to this article or B) they are not actually disputing the notes in question. At one point they attempted to pass off Hiss's own lawyer as a disinterested scholar relevant to this article.

There is no justification in Wikipedia policy for editors to substitute their own judgment for the judgment of relevant scholars.

If I have any own faults I admit that I might be a bit too combative at times, frustrated as I am due to what I see as the blatant obstruction of improving this article. At one point, an editor accused me of being part of a military conspiracy to get Hiss. I regret any hard feelings that may have resulted. It has been argued that my use of the term "conspiracy theorist" is a deliberate insult. It is not. It is a factual statement because Hiss partisans routinely justify their belief of Hiss's innocence on the idea that the FBI and military conspired to make a fake typewriter to frame Hiss, and that it has been covered up to this day. This is clearly detailed in the Alger Hiss article and is not something that I made up.

Another issue is whether or not their is an overall scholarly "consensus" against Hiss. Overwhelming evidence has been presented that there is so, although I regard that as a secondary problem. I invite users Collect and Yopienso to state their views on that.

CJK (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't understand the idea that this is a mere "content dispute". When I am able to provide a scholarly source to justify my edit, and the others cannot provide one adequate source to prove it wrong, it seems clear that it is a conduct problem related to pushing fringe views. I don't see how anyone could look at the talk page and the seemingly endless discussions on that page and conclude that another RFC (beyond the two already conducted) or mediation would do the trick.

CJK (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

I have no idea why this matter has been raised here - as far as I am concerned, it is a simple content dispute, brought about by CJK's repeated insistence that the Alger Hiss article contain statements which appear not to be directly supported by reliable sources. Personally, I only became involved in this discussion as a result of an RfC where I was asked to comment on CJK's proposals. My input has largely been confined to asking that proper sourcing for any proposed material be provided, and that contributors stop engaging in original research in order to 'determine' Hiss's guilt or otherwise. As I have repeatedly made clear, I do not consider it Wikikpedia's job to make such determinations - instead, we should confine ourselves to reflecting, with due regard to weight, the opinions on the matter of the relevant sources cited. Incidentally, I find CJK's description of me as a 'Hiss partisan' somewhat troublesome in that as far as I'm aware, I haven't made any indication as to whether I consider Hiss guilty or not - and don't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the case to do so. Not that my personal opinion should have any bearing on article content anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Since CJK is insisting that this is more than a content dispute, I'd like to make it clear that accordingly I shall be raising his repeated stonewalling, and refusal to cite sources for material he has repeatedly proposed, as evidence of tendentious editing, should this case proceed further. In particular, I will draw attention to the discussion at Talk:Alger Hiss#A simple and direct question for CJK, where I have asked for a source to be provided for a statement that CJK has been arguing for over the entire period I have been involved in the discussion - which source he has yet to provide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I'd recommend reading Talk:Alger Hiss#A simple and direct question for CJK in full. After repeated requests for CJK to provide proper sourcing for the material he proposed to be added in the RfC I originally responded to, none has been forthcoming which actually support the proposals. Instead, CJK is once again arguing that Wikipedia should be making statements concerning Hiss that aren't based on verifiable sources, but instead on his own subjective opinion on the state of academic discourse. I have of course made it clear that if any such unsourced material is added to the article, I will delete it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Collect

I suggest this is primarily a content dispute for which ArbCom is ill-fitted. The editors who basically say that a source saying only "die hards" still defend Hiss is not a strong source for saying there is a consensus currently that Hiss was guilty of being a Soviet agent may well be tendentious, but proving such is likely a long task here, and mediation is likely, I hope, to get added voices into the issue as to whether the recent sources, which are fairly unanimous from outside modern scholars, should still be continuously rejected out of hand. I suggest that those who have not read the talk page discussions do so amd note the nature of the problem. Collect (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

[13] unfortunately shows a behavioural problem on the part of User:The Four Deuces which seems likely to result in long-term problems. Es[ecoially as it misstates the issues, and makes an implicit personal attack on me. I woulda thunk (and hoped) he would be on his best behaviour until this request was officially turned down. Collect (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Cline

At the request of another editor, not involved in this content dispute, I was asked to monitor an ongoing edit war between CJK and Joegoodfriend on the Alger Hiss article. On May 29 I fully protected the article and warned both parties to resolve the content dispute and cease the edit warring. [14], [15]. On May 30, I suggested to Joegoodfriend that another RFC on the questions should be crafted and more community input sought. [16]. On June 3, after no outreach from CJK or Joegoodfriend to the community, I notified 5 Wikiprojects of the content dispute and encouraged broader participation. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. The notifications resulted in much greater dialog on the Alger Hiss talk page. Between 9 and 18 June I responded to a couple of edit requests on the talk page. Other than monitoring the discussions on the talk page, I have not participated in the substance of the content dispute. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by joegoodfriend

This is a content dispute. The above statements from AndyTheGrump and Collect are accurate summaries of the situation. The dispute is typified by the addition of the NPOV tag to the article by CJK because he feels that the article is written from a too neutral POV. We are here because CJK refuses to collaborate with other editors and has repeatedly violated wikipedia's policy known as Ownership of Articles, setting himself up as sole arbiter of the article's content. Following CJK's original edit to the lede, I let him know my objections. He refused to discuss compromise. I tired letting every word of his edits stand while adding edits of my own to provide balance. He refused to let any of my edits remain in the article. Thus we attempted to settle the dispute through RFC. The edits that CJK proposed in the RFC received a great deal of comment, nearly all of which stated that the edits should not be made. Unhappy with this result, CJK then declared that the points made by the editors disagreeing with him were moot and of no value. These other editors cited many expert sources disagreeing with CJK's conclusions. However, per his statement above, he declared all these other sources to be Fringe, even though they are used in citations in many other wikipedia articles and thus qualify as Reliable Sources for the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wehwalt

I did a fair amount of reading on this at the time I did my Nixon project, and the quantity of evidence against Hiss, in the wake of Venona, is fairly overwhelming. Against it is little more than Hiss's word, and sixty-five years of attempts to explain away the evidence by his apologists. That being said, this is a content dispute, and if you are going to take cases that are really content disputes, there should be more attempts first to resolve the issue, through RfC or otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DEddy

My understanding of this discussion issue is that CJK demands that the Hiss issue be presented as 100% decided ("Case Closed" to use the title of first chapter in "Spies"), a consensus of academics (presumably in the topic, but that's not at all clear) agree on indisputable evidence of Hiss's guilt. As far as I can tell CJK has not made his case. The existing footnote on the Hiss article page refers to a a total of 4 references, some of which are not accessible & as far as I can see do NOT reference an academic consensus.

Having just re-read the first chapter ("Case Closed") of "Spies" other than repeated statements of "Hiss is guilty" I cannot see a well laid out argument. The jumping around in times & dates raises a major red flag. Since the book does this elsewhere I can only assume just sloppy work.

In Vassiliev's own words, the GRU archives were not indexed & therefore difficult to find desired information. This was on top of the fact that Vassiliev was researching in KGB archives, not GRU.

As far as reliance on VENONA cables as the definitive source of information. To my knowledge the only quasi original/source cable we have is the 6 point Ales-travels-to-Moscow one, released (after long denial of existence I understand) at the October 2005 National Cryptologic Symposium. Other than that single "original" in the Russian, all the other VENONA cables are sourceless English end-results.

My vote: this topic is still very much in dispute.

I am still waiting for response as to what CJK's base of knowledge is in this very complex topic is. DEddy (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

This is a content dispute and should be declined. In reply to CJK it is a content dispute because the dispute is about what content to add to the article, in particular how to interpret Neutral point of view, which is a content policy. It is not helpful that your first discussion thread was called, "The preposterous defense of Alger Hiss", that you refer to a statement in an "article used to criticize Haynes and Klehr's book" as a "brazen lie", that you accuse other editors of believing Hiss to be innocent, and despite talkpage guidelines continue to argue about the evidence of the case, rather than merely presenting what sources say. All of those actions are against behavioral policies. I believe that an administrator should provide you with notice under the powers invested in them underWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. TFD (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 173.52.254.147

I have looked over the "request for arbitration" guidelines and I noticed that it says, "If you have taken 'all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration."

1) Editor CJK has been asked to provide a reference for his claims, a reasonable step, but has not yet made a move in that direction. 2) This dispute IS over the content of the article and therefore does not meet the requirements for arbitration.

Posted by The Four Deuces on behalf of 173.52.246.85/173.52.254.147[22]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Alger Hiss: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Still awaiting further statements but it does seem like a content issue that hasn't been worked through other steps as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline No further statements necessary. The other avenues have clearly not all been tried yet. NW (Talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. This is a good-faith content dispute and ArbCom generally tries not to interfere in those; CJK, you should try using Wikipedia's methods of dispute resolution. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as content dispute. Courcelles 00:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline: content dispute (and more effort needs to go into trying to resolve it through the normal channels).  Roger Davies ^talk 04:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. As it happens I am familiar with much of the literature on the Hiss case. The scholarly consensus, with which I personally am in agreement based on my own review of the evidence when I was part of a historical program on this case a couple of years ago, is that Hiss was clearly guilty—and that it does not require access to Soviet archives to establish the fact. As such, I think that parts of Alger Hiss are unbalanced in their tone. In terms of whether this is a content or a conduct dispute, it is primarily the former at this time. Both sides of the talkpage debate have unhelpfully dug in their heels, but what is really needed is for everyone to step back and reevaluate the sources and "meta-sources" that do exist. It might be for the parties here to take a few weeks off to clear their heads before doing so, and it would definitely be good if other knowledgeable editors were invited to join the discussion. I don't see anything that the Arbitration Committee could contribute here as being helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipediocracy

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 19:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party

Who else is involved? The entire oversight team, dozens of admins, dozens of other users, most of whom will find their way here soon enough. If anyone else wishes to add themselves to this list as involved party please go right ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• post on the talk page of the Wikipediocracy article
• post at AN as this direclty involves the use of admin tools
• I have informed the oversight mailing list of this as well.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I'm sure the committee is entirely aware that this issue has been in front of them before, several times.

Statement by Beeblebrox

I am filing this request in my role as a functionary and administrator. We are in an impossible position with regard to the issue of linking to Wikipediocracy. Every time they out a user here, drama ensues. This has included many suppression actions which had the opposite of the intended effect, blocking of long term users, wheel wars, desysoppings, and so forth. And to what end? None that I can see. Links to the site still exist, they still out WP users, and everything we do to try and quietly deal with the issue blows up in our faces in a massive Streisand Effect. The oversight team cannot deal with an issue like this, our work requires acting quickly and quietly. That doesn't cut it when it comes to this one particular website. The community can't seem to deal with it either, some users hate WO and will do whatever they can to stop all mention of it, some love it and will go to any length to draw attention to whatever their latest effort is, and some of us, like myself, are caught in the middle, trying to do right by Wikipedia users while at the same time acknowledging that attempting or even appearing to attempt to silence critics is a bad thing. And the situation has been complicated by the fact that we now have an article on the site. Some key points as I see them:

• Outing users or linking to outing is undesirable and currently not permissible by my understanding of WP:OUTING
• Sometimes linking to the main page of WO is a link to outing, sometimes it is not.
• Every attempt to remove any such links has inevitably led to more attention to the outing material, not less
• We have an article on the site, every other article on a website has a link to it, but because this external site attacks WP users individually and deliberately reveals their personal information it is particularly problematic in a way that other sites are not
• This is therefore not so much about content as it is about the one specific behavior: linking to that site. Is that sanctionable? Should it be? Do we remove, delete, or suppress any such links or only those which directly link to outing material, as opposed to the main page where the material is often hosted?

• I know you guys are going to hate me for this, but we need guidance on these points. The community can't make up its mind on the matter and the OS team is not equipped to deal with situations this convoluted. That, in my opinion, places it within ArCom's remit. A motion may be preferable to a full case, up to you guys. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@AGK: Yes, it was being discussed on the mailing list, and the discussion was, unlike most such discussions, seeming to lead further from a consensus rather than toward one. And so the requests we received sat unactioned, the OS team paralyzed with indecision. This was not the first time this exact same scenario played out on that list. That's a a bad thing. I know this is sort of attention is what WO craves, and that is also a bad thing, but to my mind not as bad as a group whose task it is to protect our users being unable/unwilling to act because it is not clear what we are supposed to do. (Also, this isn't really about whether WO is a reliable source. I don't recall anyone making that argument. But, as noted in my request, we have an article on them now and it (sometimes) has a link to their main page, which (sometimes) has outing on it. You might want to make sure you have actually read the RFAR before you tell me how stupid I am for bringing it.)

@NYB: Yes, you are in an impossible position with no easy answers. I'm sure you are used to that by now. This is why we have ArbCom, to find an answer to the problems nobody else can seem to resolve. There is no way it is appropriate for the OS team to just figure this out amongst ourselves and then just start applying our decision on the matter. We are not a decision-making body, you are.

@Everyone who thinks I'm a jerk for opening this: It's not like I didn't see that coming. I am also the designated jerk at my real life job and often have to do things that are unpleasant but nonetheless need to be done. Just yesterday I had to explain to a somewhat clueless older gentleman that his innuendos were creeping out my female staff and he would have to take his business elsewhere. Last year I made one of my staff cry when I fired them. I didn't enjoy one second of any of that, and I'm not enjoying this either, I wish the OS team could've figured it out and dealt with it quietly, as we do in pretty much every other scenario but seem unable to do in this particular case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Only in death

• Not interested in becoming a party, but I respectfully disagree with Beeblebrox's comment that the community are unable to handle it. They seem to be handling it well enough. General consensus on the talkpage seems to think linking to the website is okay. That a couple of people disagree does not mean the community cannot 'handle' it. Also think of the precedent, if we went about removing links to websites that 'outed' wikipedia editors, do you know how many that would be? And where would we stop? It would justify anyone removing website links in references/sources. Going back, think of the coverage of Essjay in the press. That a website occasionally has content that violates wikipedia's internal rules is not a rationale for not linking to the website. Also - common or garden content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Just like Only in death, I'm not interested in becoming a party. I'm just here to urge Arbcom to take this, perhaps on an emergency basis since we've not had the normal RFC-the-question-to-death first. Beeblebrox has done a good job of describing this ongoing situation; when the issue keeps blowing up every several days, I don't see how we can say that the community has been able to handle the situation properly. We need a definitive resolution to this situation, and while I have a definite opinion on whether we should include the link, I'd strongly prefer that Arbcom rule against my opinion rather than letting this chaos continue. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved PumpkinSky

WP:BADSITES all over again. PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Arsten

I encourage Arbcom to take this. I do not think this is something that the community can handle; it will keep boiling over periodically until Arbcom gets involved. In fact, I think a case was merited a few months ago, but it was passed up in favor of a motion and problems have continued. I think the community would definitely benefit if Arbcom would examine the conduct of the parties involved in promoting/suppressing this site on Wikipedia.

Statement by uninvolved I Jethrobot

I support Arbcom taking on this case. Given the history of this case, I'm not exactly confident that the current discussion on the talk page is likely to be binding or helpful. Based on the Arbcom decision in #Outing sites as attack sites, it seems like a precedent for cases like this one has already been set. The fact that WO only sometimes posts articles that harass or out editors is not really an excuse to waffle on the issue; what is important is that it has a reputation for doing so. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand why editors are citing "context is everything" as though it's a viable solution here, because it's not. Wikipediocracy may be helpful/humorous/whatever, but it has a reputation for outing editors. This becomes known whether the link is on an article, a discussion page, or on ANI. The value of providing access to the page seems far less than the value of protecting the identities of whomever WO contributors might have on their radar at any time. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Isn't ArbCom supposed to tackle user and administrative behavior, not general policy interpretations? Beeblebrox needs to take his question to WP's configuration control board. Anyone have a link to that page? Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Committee, I am taking off on a two-week long work trip early tomorrow during which I may or may not have adequate Internet access and/or time to file a case which addresses the real elephant in the room here, to which I think Salvio implied in his comments below. If you look at Mathsci's comments here in which he casts aspersions on several people, I think you will see evidence of a continuing trend that needs to be examined in a full-fledged case. I beg that the committee please await my case request which I hope will be properly framed and include the appropriate parties. Cla68 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

ArbCom can dispose of this simply by affirming that all pages on Wikipedia must abide by WP:BLP and that WO is not a "reliable source" for any contentious claims regarding any living person, thus any reference cited to it and referring to a living person may be instantly removed by anyone under the existing policy. Collect (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci Your It could well be that Cla68 helped write the blog post might be seen, in itself, as "casting aspersions." I think you would do well to tone down such attacks yourself. WO has really major problems - but that does not relax WP standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

Please reject this with a message for everyone to get on with their lives. We do not need to repeat Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, and once everyone gets tired of the current drama the link will just sit there, largely ignored. Mangoe (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

...though Mathsci's claim that he has specific and personal authorization to delete the link indefinitely bids fair to demand an ARBCOM ruling. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I need to repeat what I said in the last case: we cannot lay an obligation on other sites to be incurious about editor identities, and cases like Essjay and Qworty will always pop up in which their curiosity is, in the eyes of the average reasonable person, entirely justified. Inevitably these attack sites cases turn into exercises in making sure that anyone who reads the talk page or whatever knows that if they search for the website, they can get this forbidden information. The raw link says no such thing. Responsibility for maintaining anonymity has to devolve on those who possess it; fighting over linking is in the end attention-grabbing drama, and has on occasion devolved into damaging deletions of links in citations which are required by our content rules. Mangoe (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Demiurge1000

There is a counter-example to "every other article on a website has a link to it". The article Encyclopedia Dramatica, about a website with similar issues and some of the same contributors, has reached an odd compromise whereby (most of the time) there is no clickable link to the site in the infobox, there is no link to the site's front page anywhere, there is a clickable link to the "About" page of the website in one of the references, and the current and former domainname of the site are listed in the infobox. Some variation on this may get around some of the repeated issues, because those issues mostly seem to involve concern about links to Wikipediocracy's front page. A link to Wikipediocracy's "Introduction and welcome to the public", instead, might not be so controversial. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

The core question is whether we feel it prudent to allow an attack site dedicated to the harrassment of Wikipedia users to include a link to its page in its article. That is a content issue, and beyond Arbcom's remit. Beeblebrox, however, makes a good point about how the oversight team could use some guidance here. The simple truth is, as long as Wikipediocracy's links (of which, the only spot on this entire project where one is valid is its own article) take a reader to directly to harrassment and outing, this problem is going to persist. That is possibly the intention of the Wikipediocrats, but they could prove me wrong by agreeing to link only to a neutral page that will not link to such harrassment. An About Us page, perhaps. Resolute 00:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I wholly concur with Worm's sentiment of "A link to the front page of Wikipediocracy should not be considered problematic, unless it's problematic in the context". If a motion/finding along those lines passes, I believe that will serve as a basis to finally resolve the weird anachronism at the Encyclopedia Dramatica article that Demiurge notes above (though he is a bit behind the times; the "about us" link is currently used in the infobox).

All the talk about banning links is just smoke and puffery anyways. Say a ban did pass, or that that asinine blacklist attempt was successful. What then? Does anyone think that you're helping our editors and readers by obfuscating information? All you'd be doing is making it inconvenient, and I believe Ms. Streisand has something to say about what happens when you pull that sorta thing. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

As I recall, this issue last broke out when links to outing were added in discussions at AN or ANI and talk pages. A Comment or two above mentions Streisand effect, which means it is a privacy related issue within Arbcom's jurisdiction. Also, as there are privacy issues involved, a pending resolution injunction is in order, along the lines of Collect's comment and Demiurge's precedent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Per WTT below. Context is everything. A link to their main page in the infobox of Wikipediocracy is OK. A link to the same page in an on-wiki discussion, while that page outs an anonymous editor, is outing. This is simple and shouldn't need an ArbCom ruling, but a clarification to this effect doesn't do any harm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipediocracy sitemap mentioned by Alanyst, below is the right page to link to on that site. User:Widefox has opened Talk:Wikipediocracy#Now.2C_a_possible_target. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

Arbcom should not consider this "case," since it is a statement by one party about a website; it is not an irresolvable dispute between parties, which is ArbCom's actual purview. If the complainant wants the community to make a new rule about linking to a particular website, that would be done via an RFC, not by an "appeal" of a non-conflict with non-parties to ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, if there is now a movement to make it okay all of the sudden for Administrators to abuse full protection while involved in a content dispute, that should be resolved via another RFC. This also might be a good vehicle for detooling such abusive Administrators... Carrite (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

Prohibiting the link is the wrong choice, and outside of Arbcom's scope as the community appears to have decided to keep it. I expressed my position on this at length at the time of the Fae case: we do need to give harassed editors extra consideration, to avoid tactics that publicize the offsite allegations and outing; we do need to recognize that "opposition research" is not a valid tactic even when their identity is known and, because we should draw the line somewhere else, we do not need to focus directly on the secrecy of what is not secret as if it were an achievable goal. We should feel free to link to Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipediocracy, American Nazi Party, whatever we have an article about, regardless of what they have to say. But we don't have to showcase what they have to say under guise of policy enforcement. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I do not thinks this warrants a case, perhaps just a motion. The issue seems to be how to handle a link which often deliberately contains explicit outing, added in the knowledge that it will be viewable on wikipedia.

I have privately communicated my concerns to the arbitration committee before this request was made. Since the article became a DYK, the administrator Zoloft complained that there were no new articles on the WO blog. Eric Barbour, with the help of the site-banned editor Captain Occam, produced an attack-piece on me. Large parts of it were a recycling of evidence from Captain Occam rejected by the arbitration committee on several occasions. The statements about mathematicians and mathematics are new. They have been described by Charles Matthews as "silly." They contained a gross misrepresentation of edits, an WP:OUTING and an attempt to try to fathom the real life identity of another long-term editor. Arbcom are aware who it is. From the commentary of administrators and moderators on WO, my impression is that the link in the article is being used to push the "ethos" and "culture" of WO onto wikipedia. That ethos involves outing. (Eric Barbour and Greg Kohs separately threatened to out me.) The most recent posting on the blog shows that the intention seems to be to use it to attack ordinary editors. Thus disruptive banned users can continue their disruptive conduct, including gratuitous outing, a click away from wikipedia.

My suggestion is to indicate what the link is but to make it unclickable. Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The outing in the blog posting was motivated by a serious misconception of Barbour that has now been pointed out to him. Instead of graciously acknowledging his error, Barbour has made sneering remarks about mathematics and is now claiming that there was tag teaming. Does Barbour really expect anybody to take him seriously? If the running of the front page is even partly in his hands or written by him, the content is potentially problematic. That is why the link must be handled with caution. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

NYB's assessment of the blog post is correct. Captain Occam, probably the main contributor to the attack-piece, has now complained about "Mathsci's four years of abuse" and wants more Occam-style dirt to be delivered. This is exactly the kind of conduct that got him site-banned here. Since November 2012, Occam has systematically used WO as an attack site, mainly to attack and lobby against me. Occam has proceeded with stealth, like his socks here: Zeromus1, Mors Martell and Akuri (the blatant attack-only account which King of Hearts helped create and which edited with open proxies until blocked by arbitrators). Mikemikev's postings about WP on Stormfront and elsewhere are on the same level as the blog post. Captain Occam's statements are rarely reliable. As an example, as part of the huge amount of evidence he has compiled, he has stated that in the Muhammud images arbcom case the 50 diffs I supplied were the main source for the final decision drafted by AGK. In fact only one of AGK's seven diffs appears amongst my fifty and there is no wikilink to my evidence. That sadly is indicative of Occam's "evidence"—just casting aspersions. Jayen466 and Alison, both involved in the administration of WO, have tried or are trying to sort out some of the mess on WO, which is a very positive sign and they should thanked for doing so. I don't know if others like Cla68 and Stanistani were involved in allowing the blog to be posted. It could well be that Cla68 helped write the blog post since he's mentioned there and has previously recycled some of the Occam content on arbcom pages. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

In a reply to Worm's comment, I can only reply (in a line I believe by Yogi Berra.. "That's the thing about common sense these days.. it ain't so common". No one really wins in these situations.. well except popcorn sellers and folks who feed on the drama engine. I do not endorse WO's linking to real names (other than that already made public by that user). Never had, Never will. They do tend to get things right (in broad strokes) a lot of the time, but unfortunately tactics like this end up backfiring more often than not, in losing their point in the great hubbub of "That's outing". I don't think a long, drawn out case is a good idea, so I urge the committee to find a way to avoid feeding the "drama engine" as a high priority in their discussions when trying to determine how to resolve this issue. 06:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Saedon

While it is true that this is not an ordinary content dispute - in that it involves factors beyond editorial discretion - it does not fall under the remit of arbcom to decide whether we can or cannot link to a particular website. A discussion needs to take place in a central location and we as a community need to come to a consensus. This is a matter of deciding policy as a community and Arbcom does not legislate, they adjudicate. If Arbcom were to accept this case they'd be setting a brand new precedent as far as I know and it's not one I think is in Wikipedia's spirit. Sædon^talk 08:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beetstra

Generally, a reason to blacklist a site is the serious abuse of a site, taking into account the use of the site. It can either be prolonged spamming of a site of low use, it can be the blatant, though short term, spamming of a utterly useless site with edits which are clearly in bad faith, or a few link (sometimes even good faith) additions to material which has serious problems (linking to copyright violations, where the site anyway does not contain anything but copyright violations to name one).

One could consider, to plainly blacklist domains that out our editors (and whitelist a representative page on the site for use in the article if the outside site is notable and has an own article).

The problem now is .. is linking to an site that is outing a Wikipedia editor actually a form of outing, and should such sites fall under the same category as plain copyright violations, i.e. should those be WP:ELNEVER. Our external links guideline does not have such a clause for outing sites, it does for linking to copyright violations on other sites (in line with WP:COPYRIGHT).

If that problem is a legal issue, then that should get a verdict from ArbCom or even the Foundation, the clauses should be put into the respective policies and guidelines, and by that verdict, the site should be blacklisted. If it is not a legal issue, this needs to go through an RfC, and, if consensus is that way, should then be put in the respective policies and guidelines &c. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by 28bytes

@AGK: I don't think that's a fair characterization of Beeblebrox or his motives. The oversight team has been put in a difficult position. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that I put in a request to oversight some blatant outing that I rev-del'ed last night, and that request has so far gone unanswered, I suspect because they don't know whether (1) they'll get smacked around for oversighting the material, or (2) they'll get smacked around for not oversighting the material. I don't blame them at all for wanting some clarity from the committee as to what to do here. 28bytes (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Cavarrone

Have the "involved" editors (like the one who engaged edit warring to remove the link to the website) realized that they have actually advertised the article they would had been unseen? And that the current discussion, as well as the previous discussion at ANI, are just hyping both the site and the article that otherwise a very few of us would ever noticed or read? This discussion is silly, the problem is silly, the result is already the contrary of what the damaged parties wanted to get... Cavarrone 13:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis

This is a no brainer. Obviously, the only situations where blacklisting a website can be effective is when that website is unknown to the public. So, if I were to create a blog that serves as an attack site, then blacklisting such a blog may work as long as this blog doesn't become well known (and blacklisting it would help to keep it from becoming well known). But when a website is well known, it's too late to have an effective blacklisting. Also when such restrictive measures are not effective, there will be side effects and these side effects will be the main effects of the policy. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

If arbcom were to take case then this would be the third time this issue has been examined by the Committee.--MONGO 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanyst

Events have overtaken this request. User:Stanistani thoughtfully created a 'sitemap' page at Wikipediocracy, http://wikipediocracy.com/sitemap, that does not feature any harassing content, nor indeed any dynamic features such as a headline crawl that might occasionally contain such content. It does contain some useful content for the first-time visitor, and thus seems ideally suited to use as an external link in article or talk space. This should make it easier for the oversight team to choose a course: remove links to WO pages that do contain harassing content (or, as with the headline crawl, may reasonably be predicted to do so frequently), but permit those links that lead to "safe" pages such as the sitemap. This is consistent with policy and makes the need for ArbCom's guidance moot. alanyst 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, a BLP AfD recently raised at the instigation of a Wikipediocracy editor claiming to be the subject,[23] nominated by another Wikipediocracy editor and most vehemently argued by a 3rd Wikipediocracy editor. As a result of this article, and my fairly minor role in it, I was one of 3 WP editors to be hounded at Wikipediocracy including outing and gross insults.[24]

I don't consider this to be acceptable behaviour, especially not when it's carried out by WP editors happy to use Wikipediocracy as a WP:CIVIL-free sandbox for things they couldn't say here without being immediately sanctioned. As an issue perhaps outside the scope of this ArbCom request, I would like to see clarity on WP:CIVIL as to whether behaviour at Wikipediocracy can be considered a factor for sanctions at WP under CIVIL/NPA, or an initial cause for such sanctions (i.e. should a cynical editor who keeps themselves in check at WP but violates the behaviour of WP:CIVIL at Wikipediocracy be sanctioned here at WP for that alone.)

That said, I think WP should link to Wikipediocracy from Wikipediocracy. Anything else just makes WP look petty. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by King of Hearts

I believe this to be outside the scope of ArbCom. If there was significant edit warring or wheel warring over it, then ArbCom could impose sanctions on the warriors, but it cannot decide what to do with article content, which seems to be the motive for this request. I feel that if it's really necessary to have a final say, then we do what we did with Ireland a couple years ago and hold a binding RfC/poll, with a period of (say) 2 years in which the decision may not be challenged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong

Arbcom would be wise to pause and consider this request. The actions of WO regulars (many of whom are former Wikipedia Review regulars) have directly led to the retirement of prolific editors and admins. I can say that with great confidence, because I am one of them. When several WO regulars outted me on their site, and threatened to contact my employer in an attempt to get me fired, and linked to it from all over Wikipedia, I wasn't genuinely frightened by it, knowing that the reality of the situation likely involves a harmless, pizza-faced teenager in sweatpants in his parents' dark, dingy basement. However, it did cause me to re-evaluate why I volunteered my time here, and whether it was worth it for me. The outting changed the equation for me, and I no longer contribute here with any regularity as a result. Even if it was only a symbolic gesture, blacklisting WO would minimally improve the situation, and make it impossible for someone to be blocked for accidentally linking to it. The opponents say "well, I can just tell people to go to Wikipediocracy instead of linking to it." Fine, then tell people to go there instead of linking, I don't give a shit. While I agree that having an external site devoted to criticism of Wikipedia is healthy, this particular site oversteps those bounds quite a bit, by viciously going after people and attempting to affect their lives outside of Wikipedia, and this has a very real effect on the editor count here. I believe that Arbcom could, at the very least, make a strong statement here by taking on this case and taking some meaningful action to discourage the damaging misbehavior that has become such a regular occurrence on this external site. We cannot control what they do, but we certainly can assert some influence them in some ways. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Do that common sense thing which is supposedly so scarce these days. Yawn. Very loudly.Volunteer Marek 06:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dan Murphy

Hardly a day goes by that someone does not feel harassed or slandered by something that appears in The Daily Mail, a newspaper that has a well-deserved reputation for falsehood. Yet over 15,500 Wikipedia articles have links to dailymail.co.uk. I urge the Arbitration Committee to take up the thorny issue of links to websites that upset people and to prioritize by starting with the ones that have the greatest potential for negative impact and work down from there.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Linking to Wikipediocracy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Control. Self-importance. Perspective. All words that keep floating round my head. Wikipedia is a website, it has a community behind it, one that makes up its own rules. There's been a little guidance over the years, but when it comes down to it we decide what happens here. Many members of the community feel comfortable in this walled garden that is Wikipedia, where civility is expected, opinions are heard and you can be who you want to be.
  But what happens beyond that wall? Most of the internet is a place where the rules are different. We cannot affect what goes on past that wall, to believe that we should is the height of arrogance. We cannot control the internet. What we can do is remember focus on our walled garden and ignore the outside world.
  With respect to the problem at hand, this is my solution - context. A link to the front page of Wikipediocracy should not be considered problematic, unless it's problematic in the context. So, in the situation that the Wikipediocracy front page outs a user, then an external link on the Wikipediocracy article is not a problem, but an external link to Wikipediocracy during a discussion about said user is a problem. Surely we can manage with a little common sense? Similarly with any other blog or website. Context is essential. Worm^TT(talk) 23:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which is not a required part of our article on the website, and would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the rest of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline. AGK [•] 10:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• 28bytes: The matter was being debated on the oversighters' mailing list, to which the entire committee is subscribed. Unlike nearly any other Wikipedia function, the role of oversighter requires the making of difficult decisions out of the public eye – so that the items to be oversighted are not "Streisanded". An experienced oversighter bringing something like this to the committee's public hearings page is utterly gung-ho. AGK [•] 22:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly not an actionable arbitration request and generates more heat than light. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• This request strikes me ArbCom's Bizarro-world version of Lake Wobegon's children: All of our options are below average.

1. We could dictate that links to Wikipediocracy are forbidden. This will create a hue and cry that we are acting as a board of censors, plus we're not supposed to make policy, at least not in so obvious a way.
2. We could dictate that links to Wikipediocracy are permitted. This will create a hue and cry that we are indifferent to the distress of editors who are harassed on that site and whose personal information is revealed there, plus we're not supposed to make policy, at least not in so obvious a way.
3. We could direct that a community-wide RfC be held to settle this issue. This will gin up the publicity engine for policy RfCs, which will draw more attention to the current nastiness on Wikipediocracy than a dozen links ever will.
4. Or we could accept this as an arbitration case and discuss the issue for the next month, in which case ditto ditto.

So I sit here on Buridan's ass, wondering whether the metaphor of starving to death because one can't choose among equally good alternatives, is applicable to choosing between equally lousy alternatives. (Cue some wiseguy who will post this comment to the Wikipediocracy thread and think he's being clever by making some comment about the unlikelihood of my starving to death). And all of this in a disagreement, with good arguments over both side, about a link whose importance is almost purely symbolic, because everyone who wants to find Wikipediocracy will just type the word into Google; it's not as if its location is a secret if we don't link to it. I'll wait a few more hours before voting, in case something changes, but my current inclination is to vote to decline the request, because as much as I would like to cut the Gordian knot of this problem (sorry, there was a bulk sale on metaphors today), I don't have any end-game in mind of what positive we could do if we accepted it.

On a personal note, on my talkpage over the past few months I've said everything I have to say about Wikipediocracy, a site on which I've posted very occasionally and been criticized fairly often. Sometimes, particularly in the area of BLP, the Wikipediocracy contributors make valid criticisms of Wiki(p/m)edia and Wiki(p/m)edians. Sometimes they make criticisms that I personally disagree with, but that are perfectly within the realm of reasonable discussion. Sometimes the site allows disaffected Wikipedians a chance to blow off steam, and a chance to for non-disaffected Wikipedians a chance to engage with people who aren't comfortable on, or no longer allowed to post, on Wikipedia. Sometimes the site displays genuine wit (the way the segue'd my criticism of the "Westboro Baptist Church" thread into the Holy Grail opening credits made me smile broadly). Far too often the discussions focus distastefully on the doings and foibles off-wiki of individuals, such as the bizarre focus, inherited from Wikipedia Review, on Jimmy Wales' personal life. And then sometimes the site contents go after a given individual for no good reason, such as what they are doing on their homepage this week. Their current blog post is not any valid form of Wikipedia criticism, it serves no useful purpose, and they ought to get rid of it, not for our sake but for the sake of the reputation of their site and its values. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Decline, per comments above and also per Risker below, who makes some points that I should have. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• I could repeat what I said on the OS mailing list, namely that I really don't know what to think: on the one hand, in principle I think we should not link to pages violating WP:OUTING (other sites can do whatever they please and we have no authority over them, but, at the same time, we should not facilitate someone else's outing of a wp user by providing links on wiki), on the other this is what we in Italy would call "Pulcinella's secret", so there's really little point in removing all links to Wikipediocracy. Not to mention that this usually ends up having an unwanted Streisand effect, as in this case.

  I could also add that, while this request has been framed in the wrong way, there are definitely editors on both sides of this dispute whose conduct should indeed be looked into by ArbCom.

  But, at the end of the day, this is all "meh". So I'll just go with Facepalm. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Decline. The guidelines relating to this sort of link have been in existence for years. The primary link that is under discussion in this request is a link to a specific website on the article about that website. Wikipedia:External links clearly states that an external link should be included, unless there is evidence of significant copyright violation or the website is blacklisted; neither of those exceptions are true in this case. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, which was developed in 2007 (the last time someone decided to try to remove links in an article to an article subject's website because they were "outing" a Wikimedian), provides suggestions on how to avoid direct linkages for sites that are significantly problematic, and instructs editors to seek consensus about how to best handle each specific case. In other words: take this to the talk page of the article, and provide suggestions in accord with Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, then come to a consensus on the best solution. It may be a different page on the site, it may be nowiki tags, or it may be something entirely different. Once the consensus is developed, it can be enforced over time. Risker (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline NW (Talk) 18:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline: As others point out above, there are tensions between the requirements of existing applicable policies/guidelines. These tensions are not new and the underlying dispute has not yet reached the point where ArbCom could intervene. (In any case, as we don't create policy, our intervention would be limited to "proposing means by which community resolution ... can be facilitated".)  Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)