Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 11 September 2007 (→‎User:Proabivouac: unless terms of the probation are breached, who cares about all those details?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Ankush135

Initiated by Ankush135 at 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Clerk Notes below. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Involved parties


Have intimated the above of the arbitration request through IP postings under the head of 'Ankush 135'. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaGizza&action=history ]] [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

However, DaGizza has reverted my queries on his talk page, called me a troll/sock & has dismissed my queries and anguish as personal attacks

Also, inspite of being blocked, my not even surfing wikipedia these days, and this being under a request for arbitration, I have been tagged as a sock again [[7]], [[8]]

Statement by Ankush135

Apologies for resorting to this method to get my block lifted as have not been left with any option

I don’t know whether all parties are aware of the request as I have blocked from editing even my talk page. Requesting for arbitration on advise of Krimpet.

Also, won’t be able to advise parties that request has been filed on account of this reason. However, will try that without logging in.

I have not been given a chance to ask of mediation, directly asked to go for arbitration

Am not aware of the intricacies of the process. However, had requested for removal of my block twice, and the requests were rejected.

I was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia by DaGizza on account of being sock of a subcontinental troll. My protest is on following counts 1. Being blocked indefinitely without prior notice 2. Presumption of me being a sock, without verification 3. Abusive language, called a troll 4. Requests for unblock turned down, first time, without getting any reason and second, on account of issues not related to the merit of my blocking Please note that I have issues with the posting on Romila Thapar and I have tried to insert a head regarding controversies effecting her. However, both Hornplease & Doldrums reverted each of my edits, on what I may call, hollow grounds. I then desisted from making further edits but started the discussion on the Romila Thapar talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romila_Thapar

Later, I inserted the NOPV disputed tag on the page. Doldrums reverted the tag 4 – 5 times. My contention was that till we settle the issue whether the article is neutral or not, the tag should remain.

However, when I last re-inserted the tag, I found myself blocked by DaGizza on wild presumptions. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I question his motive and contend that it amounts to an abuse of administrative rights when you pass punitive punishment without evidence.

I have always inserted my signature whenever making any edit. Initially, I used to forget logging in when editing, but even here, I would then replace the ip with my signature.

In non office hours, I access internet using a Data Access Card, a device which gives a different IP each time it connects to the net. But that does not mean I am a sock. I have only one ID on wikipedia.

With due respect, I contend that I am not asking for a favor but only justice to be done. I have acted within the norms of decency and my conscience is clear. Blocking me indefinitely is in bad taste and without reason

Had I been a sock or whatever, I would certainly not have tried to get the same lifted. I humbly request the arbitration committee to pass judgment on the matter. ====

Statement by DaGizza

My reasoning for blocking Ankush can be found in his block log [9]. Examining most of Ankush's contribs (Special:Contributions/Ankush135), he has engaged in revert warring and sock tagging very early in his Wiki-career. His edit-warring is evident in the Romila Thapar history page. In fact, his twenty-somethingth edit was tagging Hornplease and Doldrums as socks of each other.

For all those unware with the Hkelkar 1/2 cases, there are plenty of sockpuppeteers/trolls such as User:Hkelkar, User:Kuntan among others who constantly edit war with each other using their sockpuppets. Most often, checkusers aren't required because many admins are now very familiar with the edit-warring patterns and hence indefinitely block them on sight. From what I saw of Ankush, my gut instinct told me Ankush is one these fellows and so I blocked him.

His reaction to my block confirms my suspicions. I expect a good-faith new user to yes, probably get angry at me but otherwise try to defend their actions and probably act confused yet innocent. However, he has launch of personal attacks and incivil remarks on various users during his unblock attempts, [10], [11], [12], [13]. Other admins have declined his unblock request with what I believe to be satisfactory reasons [14], [15].

Statement by univolved KWSN

I looked at his talk page, found the diff recommending he contact ArbCom. The page was protected one edit before that, which would explain why he didn't post the request on his talk page. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I looked at the IP contribs, the edits were only made to the relevant talk pages and this page. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moreschi

Quack, quack, quack. There are massive amounts of trolling socks/meatpuppets wandering around our subcontinent/India articles, and this is one of them. Probably Hkelkar. The edit pattern is...distinctive. Moreschi Talk 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the duck test, reason, and logic are invariably more reliable than checkuser. If someone edits in a many that strongly suggests disruptive sockpuppetry, it is highly like they are a disruptive sock. Moreschi Talk 11:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Bakaman

Given that DaGizza's bumbling of other issues related to blocking led to the Hkelkar 2 case, why should we have confidence that will utilize his powers correctly again? Just as there are a number of trolls operating on the India sphere, there are a number of admins ready to experiment with users in this sphere as well.

Arbcom is being taken for a ride by these admins. There is really no need to bite a newbie in such a manner. If you honestly think he is hkelkar, please checkuser him and then block.

Namakab, in many of your reverts you label the anons as "Kuntan." If the user is in fact not Kuntan, but a good-faith user, your level of accusation is almost as bad as mine. The only difference is you don't block them but you still call them troll and bite them in other ways. Further, if the arbitration commitee believed that I misused my admin tools during the Hkelkar 2 case, they would have cautioned me then. The fact was that I only supported someone else's use of admin powers just as ten or so others did. Many of those others weren't admins. If you want to prove that I have abused my admin tools, you have to show it through my logs. If I blocked one of you guys, deleted an article with a reason which you felt was unjustified or protected a contentious article, please notify me and the arbitrators. They can look into the matter. Just saying that I have abused my position as an admin isn't doing anyone good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGizza (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 Sep 2007
That is exactly the difference. Many users tag people as hkelkar for sport, and attempting to connect people to hkelkar is a mccarthyistic way of attacking people's reputations. The fact is that I can't deny people access to editing the 'pedia while you can, evidences that your fooling around with admin tools is far more grave than tagging obvious SPA troll socks as kuntan.Bakaman 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I would like to remind everyone that an account later confirmed as one of HK's socks was initially cleared checkuser because he was away from Houston at the time that an RFCU was filed. Hornplease 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, every new Hindu user must be Hkelkar, because Hkelkar took a vacation once? Great logic.Bakaman 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In identifying Hkelkar socks checkuser evidence has once been proven insufficient. That's all.Hornplease 10:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hornplease

Not sure why I'm listed as involved, as I understand that the central concern is the blocking of the account, which I did not request or conduct, or even, to the best of my recollection, comment on. That being said, I would suppose that ArbCom doesnt need to comment; things like this could be taken to AN/I first as straightforward review of admin action. In this case, it appears that all the administrators who commented were unwilling to unblock; I can't see what ArbCom is supposed to do here. Hornplease 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I don't know why I am listed as involved. My only interaction with this editor prior to his block was to decline an unblock request for lack of an adequate reason to unblock. I have no opinion about the merits of the block, which I have not examined. Sandstein 09:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The blocked user has filed this case from an IP after being blocked indefinitely. Normally, such a case would be removed and the user told to contact ArbCom by e-mail, but here the user claims to have been advised to seek arbitration by an administrator. Could an arbitrator advise whether this case should remain here or be removed, and whether the user should be unblocked to allow for the giving of notifications. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

BADSITES

Initiated by Phil Sandifer at 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I am leaving appropriate notice on everybody's talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

No prior dispute resolution has been tried, as this is a major issue of policy that, frankly, cuts to the heart of our dispute resolution procedures, and, furthermore, is a rather immediate issue.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

After the initial (failed) proposal of WP:BADSITES as policy, a successful attempt was made to add language to Wikipedia:No personal attacks that forbids references to off-site attacks on Wikipedians. Although well-intentioned, this language is being construed by its advocates as banning mention of sites that attack Wikipedians in the article namespace, as in articles like Judd Bagley and Overstock.com. In these cases, NPOV coverage of the subject requires consideration of the website antisocialmedia.net. This website is, it should be noted, a despicable site devoted to ugly smear campaigns against people, including Wikipedia editors. However it is a relevant part of discussion of Overstock.com, and to remove mention to it is to violate our basic standards of being an encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, attempts to clarify NPA about this matter have met with resistance, and editors are repeatedly removing even the mention of antisocialmedia.net (not even links to it - just mentions that this is the website's name) from the article space.

NPOV is a Foundation issue and is non-negotiable on en. No policy may be written to supercede it, no matter what consensus of editors on the talk page of that policy might form. As the very nature of this problem is that an attempt is being made to "discuss" and "vote" on something that is inherently beyond the realm of discussion and voting, I see no recourse other than taking the matter to the arbitration committee to rule on whether removal of material such as the name of the antisocialmedia.net website can be justified under any policy whatsoever.

Addendum

And now an involved administrator, User:Tom harrison, has blanked the Judd Bagley article while the deletion debate is ongoing and protected it from editing.

The conduct of those supporting BADSITES and its derivative policies is crossing lines all over, and furthermore that conduct stems directly from a poorly thought out arbitration ruling that did not put any bounds whatsoever on the idea that sites that contain harassment should not be linked to. This is an unholy mess with personal feelings running hot and being hurt. But basic policy is being thrown to the wayside in an increasingly frenzied attempt to trade writing a thorough, NPOV encyclopedia in for an end to harassment. The phrase "The operation was a success, but the patient died" springs to mind.

I implore the arbcom to take this case, for more or less the same reasons they accepted the Badlydrawnjeff case - because there is no other body on en.wikipedia who is capable of sorting this mess out. Phil Sandifer 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

This is not a traditional case and the impulse will be to decline it, but the BADSITES (failed) policy, now added to the No Personal Attacks page (currently protected), has been used to justify an incredible amount of edit warring and generally bad behavior on both policy pages and numerous articles including Don Murphy, Michael Moore and Judd Bagley. There probably have been more. It seems like some kind of definitive statement is required, such as [16] [17] [18]. Thatcher131 00:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mackensen. You heard right. Just read the page history and talk page. Thatcher131 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring on Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [19] [20] [21]
Edit warring on Michael Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [22] [23] revert last two edits. as per WP:NPA#External links. [24] 'll revert forever. see discussion page for policy you're violating

Statement by Viridae

It should also be noted that links were removed citing the relevant section of NPA when cyde used them as evidence to back up allegations of sockpuppetry against SlimVirgin when he posted notice that he had blocked the sockpuppet account. This was done repeatedly despite the vast amount of criticism it attracted. While this may seem unrelated I believe if arbcom takes this case on they should weigh in on whether linking such attack sites in a constructive manner (ie as evidence as well as in the mainspace) is really a personal attack, and therefore falls under the remit of that policy. Ie if a site is linked to to attack someone, sure its a personal attack, but this argument appears to be over no attacking use of a site. ViridaeTalk 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JzG:"linking to material which directly attacks or outs editors is clearly a form of harassment, and has been used for exactly that purpose" that is only a form of harassment if it is actually used for that purpose. If the use is in any way legitimate (like Cyde providing evidence for SlimVirgin's sockpuppet being blocked or like it being used as a source in an article) then it is no longer harassment. ViridaeTalk 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Picaroon

We have a large amount of users committed to both supporting and opposing the #External links section of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. As noted above, revert wars on multiple articles have commenced, and both sides are convinced tha policy supports them - those in favor of removing all links to attack sites by Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and those in favor of maintaining encyclopedic coverage even of topics we all find distasteful by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since the arbitration committee passed the principle (Links to attack sites in the MONGO case) that spurred the rejected Wikipedia:Attack sites proposal as well as the above-linked section which is currently policy, I think that only the committee can resolve this. Simply put, too many members of the community are divided on the issue for consensus to form, and the root of the dispute is with an arbitration case anyways. The committee should only very rarely step in to resolve policy disputes between users, but I think this rises to that level.

Even if a full case of the standard case is not accepted, I request the committee at least thoroughly discuss it - and if possible make the whole of their discussion, not just the decision (if there is one), public. Picaroon (t) 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

I would call attention to this quote from Jimbo, which calls for a thoughtful, balanced approach to site links, not an absolutist, zero-tolerance, "under-no-circumstances" approach as some have insisted be taken. I would also invite everybody to read my essay, which I've been accused of spamming around, but nobody can say is off-topic here, at least. And, to the point of how the suppression of outside criticism makes Wikipedia look to the outside world, a couple of interesting quotes:

...the BADSITES ploy, and labeling any site an "attack site" that contains comments wounding to adminiswiki feelings, seems to be a recurring theme. I'm starting to feel like I'm dealing with Scientologists, and that "attack site" is their equivalent of "suppressive person."
Teresa Nielsen Hayden on her Making Light blog
Except that item set off yet another edit-war, a "meta"-issue fight, having to do with a Wikipedia administrative faction deeming MichaelMoore.com an "attack site". Which would make it liable to the penalty of having all its links purged from Wikipedia, as a kind of banishment. And that's scary. It's hard to convey to the acolytes within the cult of Wikipedia how petty and in fact, downright creepy, it can appear to outsiders.
Seth Finkelstein on his Infothought blog

I should also note that in pretty much every recent case that I know of in which somebody has tried to have a link removed as an "attack site" this attempt has failed. I think it was sidestepped once or twice by substituting a link to a different site (that in turn linked to the so-called "attack site"), but that's hardly a shining victory for link-suppression. In a number of other cases, the link-keeping advocates won handily. Thus, if ArbCom holds to its position of not making policy but only following and interpreting it, and that policy is made by consensus as seen by actual editor actions, then there is a clear sign that consensus fails to favor flat link bans. *Dan T.* 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mackensen: Yes, people have (ab)used the policy against actual article content... for instance, this edit, adding a relevant reference, was not only reverted as an "attack site link", but the editor making it was actually blocked for it. *Dan T.* 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to 166.166.239.195: Your comments seem off-topic here, since this is about external links to so-called "attack sites", not the making of an article here into a so-called "attack article" itself. There are other policies to deal with the latter situation. *Dan T.* 04:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Kirill: Earlier, when I mentioned the topic of "attack sites" in that other case, in response to somebody else who had done so, I got criticized by an admin for bringing my "holy crusade" to a case where it's only tangentially on-topic, but apparently you regard it as a major issue of that case now? *Dan T.* 04:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FloNight: Unfortunately, there's a pushy faction around that does seem to regard rulings as "the law of the land", so hence a need for a new decision to disabuse them of this notion. ("The ArbCom has ruled that the ArbCom's rulings need not be followed!" [insert smiley]) *Dan T.* 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to MONGO: Your references to ED are a red herring, since, although that site was the subject of the original decision, the fights and abuses of it later very rarely have had anything to do with that particular site. I can recall only one case where somebody actually was fighting to link to that site, to an essay there that he considered relevant to some point, and this debate fizzled out when those charming ED folks added a porn picture to the page in question... even the erstwhile proponents of the link lost interest at that point. The debate since then has centered around other sites, as you seem to acknowledge when you pull a bait-and-switch; after getting people in a righteous lather of indignation about how disgusting ED is, you suddenly change the subject to a claim that "less than realistic and/or intelligent commentary" is even more disgusting and in need of banning. You would have the ruling clique of Wikipedia set itself up as a board of censors to decide what sorts of commentary are to be regarded as suitable for the tender eyes of Wikipedians to be allowed to peruse. But if all those outside sites followed the same rules as us, and banned the same users as us, and in all ways adhered to the same standards as us, then what would be the point of their existing at all? There's some value to an outside forum that is not run by the same people, with the same friends and enemies, under the same standards of decorum, as our site... a free marketplace of ideas, which is often unruly and messy and noisy, but also sometimes exposes truths that those in power want to suppress, demands it. Sometimes I too wonder why I'm still here; the free and open community I was originally attracted to, one which was not afraid of outside criticism, has been replaced by one that's all too eager to put its collective heads in the sand and cower in fear at all those evil harrassers and stalkers and trolls (oh my!) on the "attack sites". It's time to draw a line in the sand against censorship and suppression of criticism. *Dan T.* 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JzG: You're right that I don't favor or advocate making direct attacks, either on or off wiki. I do, however, counsel that those who participate in a highly visible role here need, as a practical matter, to develop a fairly thick skin for criticism, fair or unfair, that will result. Supposedly the role of the press is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"; this is hardly completely fair or NPOV of them, but even more unfair is the opposite tack of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, but unfortunately that seems to be the aim of much policy enforcement on Wikipedia these days. The powerful, high-status, and well-connected editors are considered to need special protection against their feelings being hurt, which outranks any impulse to try to be fair and respectful to those of lesser status who have contrary viewpoints that annoy the powerful clique. Yes, I think it makes some sense to judge a community by how it treats its least-liked enemies, and how it is (or isn't) fair and reasonable even to people who are unfair and unreasonable to it. *Dan T.* 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I've been on a version of Daniel Brandt's HiveMind, and Jeff Merkey's Merkeylaw... I've been the target of flame wars and personal attacks online since I first went online in my college freshman year 25 years ago. Instead of going to pieces about it or demanding censorship, I live with it and laugh at it. *Dan T.* 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments: Given that Jimbo is apparently an advocate of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I wonder what he thinks of all the subjectivism that seems to be driving policy around here. I'm referring in particular to the frequent assertions that the subjective feelings of editors are of such great importance that they often trump other concerns. In this diff (in an unrelated case not connected with "BADSITES"), an editor asserts that "You are welcome to your own opinions regarding threats that are leveled against you. Attempting to evaluate my concerns using your own metrics is inappropriate." (This is in the context of supporting a permaban against a user for alleged legal threats, where others dispute that there were any actual threats aimed at the complaining user.) Basically, in the ideology of some editors, objective reality and logical discourse are irrelevant compared to the feelings of an editor who claims to have been emotionally hurt. Of course, taking action based on this (such as blocking or banning another user, banning links to particular sites, and so on) will likely cause emotional hurt to the targets of this action, but that is apparently resolved in terms of status in the Wikipedia hierarchy; emotional hurt to a higher-ranked editor is more important than hurt to a lower-ranked one. If you're way up in the hierarchy, and you act like a drama queen, then you can force everyone and everything on Wikipedia to bend to your will; if you claim to be emotionally hurt by people saying the word "rutabaga", you can probably get it banned. *Dan T.* 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Samiharris: As ArbCom doesn't make policy (by its own admission), it doesn't actually have the power to give (or deny) the right of editors to add (or remove) any sorts of links. What it should do in this case, however, is to issue an unambiguous statement correcting the misimpression to the effect that the ArbCom has in fact imposed binding restrictions on what editors are allowed to link to which are unconstrained by the development of consensus-based policy. *Dan T.* 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Krimpet

The lynchpin of the BADSITES fiasco has been the findings of MONGO RfAR, which have been vaguely interpreted and expanded upon to form the failed WP:BADSITES policy and its vestiges at WP:NPA. People have used the loose wording of the RfAR to justify all sorts of actions, from massive edit warring, to violating 3RR, and most chillingly, compromising our NPOV as Phil Sandifer explains above, all in the name of enforcing ArbCom's will, even though individual arbitrators such as Fred Bauder have cautioned that the findings are being widely misinterpreted. I urge ArbCom to clarify the findings of the MONGO RfAR and its intended interpretations in some way, as it is the only way that this dispute can be brought to a definitive close. --krimpet⟲ 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amarkov

Normally, I would really strongly oppose this for being an Arbcom case to create policy. But since a previous Arbcom decision is the basis of that policy, I suppose that accepting this case for clarification would be best. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 166.166.239.195

The Judd Bagley article is a poorly written attack piece written as a "biography". It uses selective quoting to include "a flame war among 14-year-old boys", "conspiracy propaganda", "crazy and profane attacks", and "Sleazey McSleaze admits to Sleaziness" to describe Judd Bagley and his work. It violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. When I tried to address these concerns it was reverted as "vandalism" by User:Phil_Sandifer, and then semi-protected. I would urge the arbcom to look into his actions, as it is my understanding that WP:BLP concerns should be addressed first, and that administrators should not use their powers in editorial disputes. 166.166.239.195 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(short) Statement by Purples

I believe this is an issue requiring leadership, and a clear direction, from ArbCom. As well as the passionate advocates on both sides, this is causing confusion all over the wiki, here is one recent, typical example. - Purples 06:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

I have an essay as well...here. This is a no brainer...there simply is no reason to link to websites that violate our editor's personal identity or post ridiculous commentary in some blog or do nothing but attack our contributors. The vast majority of these sites completely fail RS anyway. Websites that offer real critical analysis of our editors and of Wikipedia are a whole different matter. Has anyone taken a look at ED lately...the website grows more disgusting by the day...why in the heck would we link to it? How could it possibly be of any encyclopedic necessity? I can't say blanket bans are a good idea and I do agree with a measured and mature response to any delinkings as a rule, but if we "take down" regulations that limit what is acceptable to be linking to, then we open the door for our demise. I have seen entirely too many editors abandon this website due to off-wiki harassment and I can't stand by and simply watch others feel compelled to leave because these attacks are brought into Wikipedia. When admins and editors help facilitate these attacks by demanding we link to specific websites, it really makes me ask myself why I am still editing here. Well, ED is hardly the worst for at the very least they do claim to be a parody site, so certainly, those that pretend to be serious places where "reviews" are made regarding this website and it's contributors, but are instead dominated by banned editors with an axe to grind and consist primarily of less than realistic and/or intelligent commentary, should not pass the smell test either. Sandifer argues that websites like antisocialmedia.net are critical to have in appropriate articles...well, how come, exactly? It is but a blog, fails RS and is not notable for inclusion, especially if you add in the fact that the site is used to attack our contributors. Perhaps it is time to see if a line can be drawn in the sand which will help us specify what is and what isn't acceptable to link to.--MONGO 09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dtobias laughs at the harassment he has recieved...that's great and worth commending...in fact, if we all did more to laugh off nonsense it would probably make the trolls less effective. However, how laughable is it when you have recieved a threat that your children will be killed? Shall we just bury our heads in the sand and do nothing...surely, it is just trolling afterall. How funny is it if someone sent you photoshopped pictures of your wife engaged in various sexual acts...I wonder how funny it would be if you were at risk of losing your job because some creep has been sending emails to your internal affairs division with links to articles at ED and WR...would the laughs be continuing as you get death threats against your parents? These are but a small sampling of the off-wiki harassment that has been engineered by contributors to ED and WR, many of them banned from here for various offenses...yet there is a rational arguement that we should link to these websites, which BTW don't satisy RS anyway...I really look forward to reading that one.--MONGO 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Gerard

(I've been editing Judd Bagley, mostly just copyediting. I also recently blocked an overstock.com IP range for spamming and sockpuppetry, which block has received unusual levels of blogosphere attention for a spammer block. I personally couldn't give a hoot about Judd Bagley or overstock.com's existence and would quite like them to go away and never darken our encyclopedia again unless and until they can comport themselves like decent humans, something I personally suspect is unlikely.)

I do not seek to play down Bagley's impact on the victims of his (reliable-sourced) Internet stalking behaviour, or their strength of feeling on this matter. The guy is a completely odious arsehole (reliable-sourced). If he were hit by a fortuitous falling asteroid, the world would be greatly improved.

But. If anyone asserts that a community policy can override NPOV, they are simply wrong and the policy is simply broken and must be ignored - and those edit-warring their misinterpretation are 100% wrong and need to be made to understand why in no uncertain terms.

I note also that Wikimedia communities who think they can vote to override NPOV get their wiki taken away by the Foundation. c.f. the old Belarusian Wikipedia. The Siberian Wikipedia is headed the same way, and the Moldovan Wikipedia was closed for quite some time for completely failing at NPOV. The ArbCom needs to take this case for the defense of the wiki.

We're here to write an encyclopedia. NPA is a means to that end. If it turned out that writing an NPOV encyclopedia required personal attacks, flaming and trolling ... that'd be the rule. As it happens, NPA is pretty much essential to maintaining a working encyclopedia-writing community. But allowing that to mess with article space is unacceptable.

Note also, by the way, that antisocialmedia.net was not linked in the article - it was merely named. Nor were Judd Bagley's on-Wikipedia activities mentioned at all ... because they haven't come up in any BLP-quality sources, at all.

There are many people firmly convinced they are right to purge article space of links to websites they think attack Wikipedians - despite damage to the actual articles. This tendency was not nipped in the bud, and requires urgent attention right now.

There's an AFD on the present version of the article. It seems to be proceeding more or less sensibly, modulo strong feelings from many of Bagley's on-Wikipedia victims. The warring over "attack sites" needs to be quashed, and disinterested editorial processes allowed to proceed - David Gerard 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CBDunkerson

A link to an attack is effectively the same as making or quoting the attack directly on Wikipedia, and thus should be treated exactly the same... which in the case of a nasty comment to a user generally means a warning or block and sometimes (not always) removal of the offending material. On the other hand, linking to an attack in an article may actually be perfectly valid if the attack itself is a notable encyclopedic event (e.g. 'Osama bin Laden writes a blog entry vowing to kill the evil Jimbo because he drinks the blood of muslim babies' - clear attack on a Wikipedia user, but absolutely notable for inclusion). Extending the 'protective' concept to ban any link to a site which frequently hosts attacks is excessive and short-sighted... such sites may still contain some material which is valid and necessary for discussion or encyclopedic coverage. If the link doesn't have some merit then it can and will be removed under existing content policies. Further extending the principle, as has now been done, to ban all mention of a web-site, even without a link, if even a single 'attack' (in the opinion of the individual editor) has been made is the very height of absurdity.

Consider: Michael Moore and THF are both notable individuals who have a pre-existing history of dispute. THF becomes a Wikipedia user, brings that ongoing dispute here with edits about Moore, and Moore retaliates on his web-site by encouraging people to edit THF's page. Suddenly, Michael Moore's website is declared an 'attack site' and all links and references to it (even on the Michael Moore page itself) are removed from Wikipedia... in large part by users who have an avowed political opposition to Moore. This isn't some hypothetical absurdity like the Jimbo and Osama bit. This actually happened.

This practice needs to be banned and the users who continually abuse and mis-cast policy, arbcom rulings, and/or random comments to serve their own biases rather than the interests of the encyclopedia need to be told that enough is now very definitely more than enough. --CBD 12:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FloNight. This is about disruptive user conduct. Specifically, some users claim that the Committee already wrote a new policy and that they are allowed to edit war, block, censor, and otherwise steamroll to enforce it. That's about as disruptive as user conduct gets. --CBD 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

WP:BADSITES has been a source of disruption from the beginning, even in the days when it was only being applied to talk pages. In practice it is now being used as a weapon in real world conflicts, in order to disrupt external links in articles. It has never reached consensus, and when it was forum-shopped to WP:NPA, it still failed to gain consensus. Yet people continue to enforce it, which I think is already cause for ARBCOM to step in.

But ARBCOM is also responsible for the single most problematic aspect: this definition of "attack site". That definition came from the original MONGO case: "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." This has consistently been interpreted extremely broadly to include any site where anyone says anything anywhere about the identity of a Wikipedia editor, even if there is no direct link to that statement. In the case of TNH's website, the link to the site as a whole was removed on the basis of a comment to a blog entry— one comment out of several hundred! It took a fair bit of work to find the comment even when I knew which blog entry it went with.

The definition of "attack site" is overbroad. I think we could do without it entirely, but in any case ordinary sensible people would not understand the term as it has been used. And it has been coupled with a general lowering of civility; MONGO, for instance, has trotted out a "guilt by association" attack on me when I've objected to the application of this non-policy.

I don't see any way for this disruption to end without ARBCOM intervention. Either they must clarify their earlier rulings sufficiently so that we can formulate policy unambiguously, or they need to say "look, this was rejected; you can't keep applying it as if it were law." Mangoe 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum on "Attack" I've been active on the "Internet" about as long as D.Tobias has, long enough to be reviled venomously on usenet and in various fora. Perhaps his statement about thickening one's skin is overstated, but it isn't entirely without merit. On the other hand, we simply cannot stop external sites from hosting "attacks", however the word is construed, and we cannot expect them to honor our definition of what an "attack" is. There's a definite "if a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody around to hear it" quality to the discussion, because in every case of late (as far as I can tell), people had to be told they were being "attacked", and they had to either search for the "attack" or rely on someone else to provide them with a direct link. This has in turn had the perverse effect that the deletion of the innocent link becomes a message that there is something out there to be found. But there is also, as one can see building up here, a great deal of vituperation directed against (perhaps) outsiders as "attackers", and then against challengers to the deletions as tainted allies of the "attackers". This is the other thing that is a big problem: it seems as though BADSITES has become authorization for a great deal of incivility. I've been tagged with guilt by association over and over again. So what we have traded for dubious protection from attacks we often enough wouldn't even know about is a lot of manifest personal attacks within Wikipedia itself. Mangoe 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum re Wikipedia Review

The BADSITES mess began with a concerted effort by User:DennyColt to remove links to Wikipedia Review, a site critical of Wikipedia of highly variable (and rather often dubious) quality. They do talk about editor identities there; I would tend to expect that any external site discussing Wikipedia would do so.

Back when suppressing WR was the project at hand, both D.Tobias and I predicted that the erasures would escape from talk and user space, and slop over into article space. That's exactly what has happened. The flip side, however, is that the campaign against WR has evaporated. Back in July there were 193 links to WR review, about a quarter of which were associated with ArbCom cases. Yesterday, I found 200+ links. There doesn't seem to be a reason to deal with WR, because nobody seems interested anymore in erasing links to it. It seems to me that ArbCom can stick to dealing with the manifest disruption in article space. Mangoe 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

I think the ArbComm needs to clarify and bound the remedy in the Mongo case. The remedy itself has become a cause of dispute and drama, which I believe rises to the level of disruption. Whether a separate case is the right vehicle I am uncertain. It may be that a strong warning to certain users about the case specificness of that ruling would suffice, it may be that the ruling itself needs to be edited retroactively to make the case specific nature more clear. It may be that we just need a definition of an "attack site", or, since I think that wording is itself part of the problem, a replacement with "attack page" combined with a definition thereof.

I've heard of, but not seen diffs for, cases where preexisting article references and external links were removed because of this mess. People who remember when and where that occurred should present such examples on the evidence page to help the committee. GRBerry 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

This definitely needs to be worked through and clarified, but I'm not sure if ArbCom is the correct venue. There are competing imperatives here, but also some common ground:

  • linking to material which directly attacks or outs editors is clearly a form of harassment, and has been used for exactly that purpose
  • banning all links to any site which contains such material, without reference to its appropriateness, wider content and the prominence of the attacks within the site, leads to needless drama.

Some people remove links to sites carrying attacks, and this is done in good faith. The MONGO arbitration is usually cited in this context.

There is a long-running campaign by a very small number of editors to allow links to one or two particular sites, especially Wikipedia Review. I would be extremely uncomfortable ifg any clarification of policy were taken as carte blanche to lnk to Wikipedia Review, as its format and structure, together with its user community (many banned abusers of Wikipedia) is such that what it says on any subject is simply not useful, and every thread is at risk of being hijacked and used to attack and harass. A lot of us have been savagely attacked on Wikipedia Review for evil actions such as preventing User:JB196 from using Wikipedia to promote his book, and blocking his two hundred or more sockpuppets. If we start allowing links to sites which specialise in attacking and outing, among which I would count Encyclopaedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review, then a lot of us would feel harassed and intimidated; the feeling of harassment would be inherent in links to the site, because the sites have so much vitriol and the editors of the sites are so often vicious. Sites which make a regular practice of attacking members of the Wikipedia community by name must have a very high bar indeed to linking.

However, sites like michaelmoore.com clearly are not attack sites by any rational definition. Posting a link to michaelmoore.com is only harassment if it is done with the specific intent of harassing someone.

Then we have sites like antisocialmedia.net, which exist to attack everybody, and only attack Wikipedians in passing. Bagley is employed to pursue his employer's holy crusade against naked short selling, and is apparently given every encouragement to viciously attack anybody who stands in the way. He does this very well.

With both antisocialmedia have a very specific question: if someone is intimately linked to a site, should we suspend all consideration of our editors' feelings and link as a service to the reader, even where the site has no redeeming values whatsoever. The problem for me is that if we say yes, we are probably also saying yes to linking to Wikipedia Review, which is also devoid of any merit as a source for any article. If we allow links to Wikipedia Review - and probably if we allow links to antisocialmedia - then I suspect we will lose some long-standing contributors.

At the root of all this is the intent of the MONGO arbitration, whihc was to stop people using links to external attacks in order to harass others. I see absolutely no evidence that anybody involved in this case would countenance the use of any link to any site as a means of harassment. Not wanting to speak for others, but past exchanges with Dan Tobias indicate to me that he absolutely would not support the use of any link as a means of harassment (Dan, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). However, this raises a fundamental problem in that some editors will feel harassed if there are any links to some sites, and those will be the sites which prompt the biggest wars. Wikipedia Review, antisocialmedia, and ED if you want to count the bunch of EDers who want an article on ED.

I also see two competing philosophies of Wikipedia. On one hand we have people who believe that contant should be included unless there is a pressing reason not to include it; on the other hand we have people who think it is the job of the person proposing to include content, to achieve consensus to do so. I put myself in the latter camp, partly because of a lot of WP:BLP wars in the past and partly because it's my reading of bold, revert, discuss.

This is not something that's going to be easily solved. My recommendation would be a clarification of the MONGO arbitration that supports the removal of links to sites which *specialise* in attacking or outing Wikipedia editors, or using links to *any* site as a means to harass or attack others; I would also like to see a clarification that if there is no consensus to include a link then it should not be included. It should not be necessary for an editor who feels attacked, to achieve more than a significant minority support in order to be spared those feelings. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dan, re thick skin: I hope you never find out what it's like to be viciously attacked in a medium over which you have no control, on spurious grounds, and to have that attack repeated as fact by individuals with an axe to grind, to the point where even your friends start to wonder about it. That's what happened to SlimVirgin, and it's happened to me in the past as well. It's simply unacceptable to tell victims of despicable attacks to grow a thicker skin. This is not garden-variety Usenet crap which nobody outside Usenet ever sees, we're talking here about publishing real names, addresses, phone numbers, exhorting people to do actual harm, real-world harassment, telephone calls, calls to employers and so on. Rightly or wrongly, the nutters think Wikipedia matters in a way that Usenet does not, and Wikipedia seems to attract a more resourceful and determined kind of nutter. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to SqueakBox: with Wikipedia Review, there is no baby, only bathwater, and foetid bathwater at that. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: here's another one that is (IMO) worth considering. Should a user be allowed to link to another user's blog, when that blog contains and links to vitriolic personal attacks on another editor? I refer to the link to the weinerwatch blog in this revision of a user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mr_Grant&oldid=153785278 - I do not see how this serves the purpose of building an encyclopaedia.

Statement by User:Tom harrison

We have policies, not operating programs for admin-bots. The way to deal with this is to apply the policy with reason and good sense. Dispute resolution exists to deal with people who are not doing that. In some cases dispute resolution has not yet been tried; in another, it is in progress. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

The oft-quoted sentence in the MONGO decision that "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 Wikipedia pages under any circumstances" was drafted by me, before being accepted by the arbitrator who prepared the final decision. (I submitted this and some other proposals anonymously at that time, because I was still a newbie and was not ready to enter into the Encyclopedia Dramatica mess just yet, but I was the original drafter.)

I submitted this proposal because the original draft decision that an arbitrator had prepared on the workshop page already provided that

"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user and are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."

but it did not contain any definition of an "attack site." Editors commenting on the workshop were faulting the draft decision on that basis. My view was that "attack site," in this context, should be given some more clarity. A site that merely teased Wikipedians in a reasonable if satirical way, or that made good-faith criticisms of people's editing, should not be deemed an "attack site" resulting in unwarranted blocks and link-bans. What I thought put ED beyond the pale was its combination of vicious personal attacks on Wikipedians (and others) together with the publication of (actual or purported) personal identifying information of several editors who choose, as is their right, to edit here anonymously. The dangers created by the irresponsible practice of publicizing editors' private information without their consent are well-known to the Arbitration Committee and need not be rehearsed yet again.

With a year's more experience, this principle as originally drafted still makes a clear and necessary point, but may need some refinement. For example, I did not have in mind, when I wrote it, the type of site that contains "outing" information but also contains legitimate, or at least colorable if ofttimes mistaken or misguided, commentary on and criticisms of Wikipedia and its editors. Opinions vary, of course, on whether such a site should be classified as an attack site and link-banned. In a perfect world, such sites would render the task of classifying them unnecessary by emphasizing their good-faith commentary while minimizing offensive personal remarks about editors and completely eliminating the disclosure of private individuals' identifying information. A perfect world, of course, is not where we live.

As applied to the present case, the MONGO principle as written remains sound. It refers to "websites that engage in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identity of Wikipedia participants." A single or isolated instance of something is not a "practice," nor is discussion of generally known information about a prominent individual in public life equivalent to the relevation of private facts (although publicizing leaked, culled, or now-withdrawn information about other editors might be; I hesitate to discuss specific examples because I do not want to draw attention to problematic instances of this behavior). Thus, it does not follow from the MONGO decision that a site that reveals borderline private information about a single editor must be banned from all linking in article-space. The community might choose to establish such a policy, or editors on an individual article might decide to drop a link, but this is not compelled by the ArbCom ruling.

Of course it goes without saying that I am commenting only on the meaning of the sentence that I had in mind when I wrote it and I cannot speak for the arbitrators who decided to include it in the final decision of the case. I also express no view on whether this case represents an appropriate vehicle or forum for addressing the issues presented. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samiharris

The title of this section is a misnomer. "Badsites" would have prohibited linking to sites containing attacks, and I agree that could have been too broadly interpreted. But what is at issue here is a link to a website that consists in large measure of attacks on Wikipedia editors. Click on the website and you get an attack on an administrator who offended the "nauseating" (reliably sourced) Bagley. The article did not suffer nor was made less "neutral" by removal of a reference to the article.

The editors pushing this issue are behaving almost as if NPOV requires addition of such sites to articles in order for them to be neutral. This is nonsense.

For many months the Overstock.com article has a brief and neutral reference to this same smear site without mentioning it. Over the past day or two, without seeking consensus over what he knew was a highly charged issue, Phil Sandifer and other editors repeated inserted the name of the site in the Overstock.com article. They did so knowing that NPA didn't allow references to that site, and they also knew or should have known that the site contained on its front page an attack on a Wikipedia administrator.

Not even the numerous Overstock.com cheerleaders and Bagley fans made a serious effort to include specific references to that website. The actions of editors who had not previously edited that article, adding the name of the site and making other hasty changes (such as removing and then reinserting a section on board departures), was disruptive.

To justify his actions, Phil Sandifer and others cite NPOV. I don't see the connection. The Overstock article is not more or less neutral because it contains the name of the site. Neither is the Bagley article. At the present time, because of BLP concerns, the article is now a stub that is a sentence long and is protected as a stub. Thus there is no live dispute concerning that article.

As for the Overstock article, there is no dispute other than what was caused by editors rushing in and, disruptively, adding the name of the site to make a point. If you want to make policy or change policy, go ahead and do so. But it should not be done by zealots disrupting articles because they feel that articles must include refences to such sites.Samiharris 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to User:LessHeard vanU: You are asking the Arbitration Committee to give editors sweeping ability to add links that attack editors. While I imagine this is a laudatory goal, there are already numerous restrictions on the links that can be added to the encyclopedia, ranging from WP:EL to WP:RS and a lot in between. I hope you are not suggesting that these restrictions be disregarded when a link "builds the encyclopedia" by attacking one of your fellow editors. Re your response to this comment: the Mongo decision covers just a small fraction of the restrictions on external links, which are covered in WP:EL, WP:RS and other policies. Editors do not have free reign to link to any site not attacking editors.--Samiharris 13:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casey Abell

I've had two run-ins with BADSITES. Once SlimVirgin reverted a link I had made at Criticism of Wikipedia to a thread on Wikipedia Review. I had originally nowikied the link; another editor eventually made it live before SV's reversion. The thread outed nobody and didn't make any personal attacks. The reason I linked it was to illustrate how some editors have intentionally vandalized WP to test the reliability of the encyclopedia. The thread discussed exactly such an effort. Believe it or not, some comments in the thread were actually sensible, and criticized the vandal for such pointless and counterproductive edits.

But SV has been subjected to so much ridiculous abuse from Wikipedia Review that I didn't have the heart to restore the link. Instead, I found another (impeccable) source to make the same point. Okay, BADSITES didn't really bite me in the BADPARTS there, but I still didn't like the revert of a harmless link.

My other close encounter was a lot more frustrating, and I yelped about it on WP:ANI. Perverted-Justice, an organization that seems to upset a lot of people around here, has famously or notoriously, depending on your mood today, called WP a "corporate sex offender." I think the cirticism is unfair, but I think a lot of stuff in Criticism of Wikipedia is unfair. Perverted-Justice probably thinks the "Criticism" section of its WP article - which accuses the organization of every crime and misdemeanor including war in the Middle East, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the entire career of Carrot Top - is unfair.

I tried to link to the site's redirect page from WP, which outed nobody and made no personal attacks. The link got reverted. Then the massive two-dozen-word mention of P-J disappeared entirely from Criticism of Wikipedia, while far lengthier (and sillier) criticisms remain. BADSITES really bit here, and I thought the policy made Wikipedia look like a scared old maid from the 1870s.

I'm on record as calling BADSITES the craziest, silliest, most misguided attempt to make policy since the last time I thought about writing policy for Wikipedia. I don't understand the urge to rip links out of the encyclopedia that attack no one and divulge no personal information, just because those links may coexist on a site with objectionable material. All sorts of objectionable material is a couple clicks away on the Internet. I ask ArbCom to clarify that the MONGO policy should be applied on a link-by-link basis. Thank you. Casey Abell 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deskana

WP:NPA is a 'means to an end' policy. Preventing personal attacks from one editor to another helps us build a productive environment, in which the end result is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. In my opinion NPA should not apply to article content. Obviously if someone ads "DESKANA IS A DOUCHE" into an article, then that should be reverted per NPA, as that is an unencyclopedic personal attack. However, if linking to a "BADSITE" is required to build the encyclopedia, then it should be done. A community policy like NPA doesn't override NPOV, which is a foundation issue. As such, I request the arbitration committee accepts this case, to fully review the situation. --Deskana (talky) 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SqueakBox

Its obvious we shouldnt link to any attack page off or on wikipedia except in dealing with arbcom pages but to not link to any site that contains an attack page is throwing the baby out with the bath water especially with forum sites like Wikipedia Review or when a site is an integral part of an article, such as Don Murphy' official site for his bio. While Denny Colt was well intentioned in creating the BADSITES proposal he was also an inexperienced user and appears to have been incredibly naive as to the implications such a policy would have. I hope the arbcom accepts the case so it can give clarification re whether NPA means just the attack pages or whether it includes whole sites, and whether it applies to the main space, SqueakBox 18:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iamunknown

I agree that clarification from the Arbitration Committee is sorely needed. I worry, however, that clarification in any direction will be seen as further mandates and thereafter be regarded as the law of the land. Wikipedians in general seem to be very poor at seeing things in shades of grey. --Iamunknown 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Mantanmoreland

Currently WP:NPA authorizes removal of links or references to off-site personal attacks on Wikipedians. When he created Judd Bagley, Phil Sandifer placed a reference to a site called antisocialmedia as a subject header. This was directly against the policy and was reverted for that reason. He then edit-warred to keep it and did the same in Overstock.com. I was one of the reverters and I strictly abided by policy. Phil Sandifer did not.

NPOV did not "require" naming of antisocialmedia.netin either article. Whether it is named or not is an editorial judgment, and NPA plays into that. Antisocialmedia is a professional smear site operated by Bagley, the public relations director of Overstock.com, a company that is under SEC investigation. Wikipedia is one of its principal targets. A Wikipedia administrator is personally attacked on its main space, not in a post buried in a discussion somewhere. Overstock.com runs a Wiki called "OMuse" which makes it a competitor of Wikipedia, and Bagley has personally vandalized Wikipedia via numerous sockpuppets as User:WordBomb. This is his acknowledged Wikipedia screen name, so I am not "outing" him.

This makes antisocialmedia a unique case and is not comparable to any other website to which Wikipedia may link. The Judd Bagley article was highly negative and, while I thought it evolved into a thorough treatment of the subject, Bagley is simply not notable and it appears that the article is going to be deleted. Thus I expect that the issue is moot as far as that article is concerned. The subject of antisocialmedia was not ignored in Overstock.com; it was dealt with and given appropriate weight and without naming the site. Until the last day or so there was apparently no major outcry to name the site.

It is debatable at best if the external links section of WP:NPA is "broken" because it supposedly falls afoul of WP:NPOV. If WP:NPA is poorly drafted, it should be changed. Editors should not unilaterally edit war in violation of existing policy because they feel they are justified by WP:NPOV, the Bible or anything else. --Mantanmoreland 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Phil Sandifer: Tom Harrison's blanking of most of the article was because of BLP concerns and had nothing to do with so-called "Badsites" or the external links issue.--Mantanmoreland 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dekimasu

I must agree in large part with the editors who have commented to the effect that we are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. We cannot allow off-Wiki attacks to degrade the quality of our articles and dicate our policy, or they will have accomplished their goals in a very real way. Direct links to attack pages violate the spirit of WP:NPA regardless of whether or not external links are mentioned, but when linking to a specific page is beneficial to an article, that should be allowed regardless of the content of other pages on the site. Some editors are driven off by what is written about them off-Wiki, and that is both understandable and regrettable. At the same time, we make conscious decisions to discard a certain amount of our anonymity when we invest our time and effort in user accounts. A Wiki handle can be discarded, but if we cease to uphold WP:NPOV, and thus become systematically biased at a policy level, working here at all starts to lose its meaning. Dekimasuよ! 11:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Slrubenstein | Talk

Most of this discussion has pitted NPO against NPOV. But why? Because that is how Phil Sandifer presented it, in his opening statement. But I have yet to read any compelling argument - I mean, actual reasons rather than bald assertions - that NPOV requires the inclusion of such material. In the one case I am most familiar with, Overstock.com, the question is simple: should the article mention Chris Bagley and provide a link to his site, or not? In this case I see no compelling reason, not even a plausible reason, for mentioning Chris Bagley by name or naming his website - certainly not NPOV. First of all, not naming Bagley or the site does not exclude any view at all. The article already provides an account of critics of Oversight.com's management, as well as responses to those criticisms. The material in question (keep/delete) is not a view, it is merely information that Chris Bagley has created a website attacking critics. That is not a view; deleting it does not delete a view, so it cannot be a violation of NPOV. The real issue here is notability: is Chris Bagley's website notable enough that it merits mention in the Overstock.com article. I have seen no compelling argument that it is notable. The article already has lots of views from notable sources.

Now let's move from Overstock.com to the larger issue: websites that attack wikipedia editors, the subject of WP:BADSITES. How likely is it that such a site represent a notable view in an encyclopedic topic? Personally, I think it is very unlikely, and so far I have not seen any attack site that the rejected proposal would have addressed that rises to any reasonable standard of notability.

WP:NPA says that personal attacks are not tolerated in Wikipedia. I agree with an above comment that this policy is meant to address personal behavior, not content per se. But the opposition between personal behavior and content is a false opposition. All behaviors at Wikipedia take the form of edits - the question is, is the edit a personal attack or not? And in many cases, this depends on the content of the edit. Moreover, I fear the ArbCom has not noticed a loophole in its enforcement of the policy that some others have. ArbCom usually concerns itself with the contents of talk pages in assessing personal attacks. If ArbCom does not look at edits to the article pages as well, abusive editors will learn that they can attack someone as long as they do not do so on the talk page, but find a way to disguise it as article content.

I will refer to content of articles only for an analogy. NPOV has always been our policy, and NPOV from the beginning asked editors to cite sources. So why was there a need for an NOR policy, generally recognized to be a core content policy? Because while NPOV distinguished between majority, minority, and fringe views, there were editors who were using sources to argue that minority or fringe views were in fact superior to majority views. I think we have a similar situation here as well. NPOV hinges on distinguishing between notable and non-notable views, and I see no grounds for excluding notable views from an article even if they offend editors. But the issue here is that some editors are representing non-notable views as if they were notable views (this is the only way to call NPOV into play). And they are doing so to promote sites that attack Wikipedia editors.

The question here is not NPOV, it is notability. I suggest that an editor who presses to include a non-notable attack site is doing so to attack a fellow editor: an end-run around our policies, taking advantage of an apparent loophole in NPA. I urge the ArbCom to consider notability before it decides whether NPOV really is at stake. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Jossi | Talk

I would urge the ArbCom to hear this case to assess the the impact that attack sites has on the community and its editors. We are all volunteers and many of us dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to the project, only to be left fending for ourselves when attacked for our participation and commitment to this project. We have made BLP into a policy to "get it right" as it pertains to these living people about which we write articles. Would not be appropriate to "get it right" as well as it pertains to us editors? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:LessHeard vanU | talk

I implore the Arbcom to provide the community with a form of words that allows editors to link to any site, providing that the material directly linked to does not contain an attack, as defined in the Mongo decision, or for the purpose of an attack on an editor, so Wikipedia maintains the ability to use all sources that enable the building of the encyclopedia, and furthermore to recognise that assuming good faith requires that the need for removing of any link has to be proven, on a case by case basis. LessHeard vanU 11:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Samiharris; Read the italicised text above. LessHeard vanU 16:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Further; Indeed, but this Request for Arbitration is in regard to Badsites/NPA and the consequences of the MONGO ruling - as was my comment. I am aware also that the Arbcom does not create policy, but only interprets or otherwise clarifies existing policy, so reference to other criteria for not linking to off-Wiki sites is irrelevant here. This is my comment simplified (by being made longer); a request to produce a form of words to clarify that the MONGO ruling relates specifically to the kind of attacks commented upon there, and not the broad interpretation which has lead to the (attempted) removing of links to (and the sanctioning of editors posting such links) sites which have been construed by some editors as attack sites, and that the case for removing links per the MONGO ruling should be dealt with on an individual basis and not default to a class of sites/links, so editors may link to such sites as help build the encyclopedia without fear of sanction.LessHeard vanU 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DHeyward

Web sites that use attacks on their page to troll wikipedia should be treated as any other troll. revert, blco, ignore. These sites are using Wikipeida to either generate traffic to their site or to improve their google ranking. Certainly no one advocates removing relevant content, but also it's very debatable whether a hotlink to a web site is required for an article especially when it exposes Wikipedia editors to harassment. Just because a troll puts up a website doesn't mean we surrender to the trolling. If we wouldn't allow the troll to post the material on a wikipedia user page, we probably shouldn't link to it in articles. That doesn't mean we don't write about it, just that we don't take people to the trolling and we don't increase their google rank and we don't generate traffic. --DHeyward 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DGG (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply urge Arbcom to take this case, simply on the basis that the conclusion of the previous related case needs to be further explicated, as it has become obvious that the meaning is not being clearly understood. I am not necessarily objecting to the close there, but a further statement is needed to deal with aspects that it has become clear were not adequately treated. This would seem the obvious place and time. DGG (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Proabivouac

I fully support the spirit of BADSITES, but it is the height of hypocrisy to criticize others 1) for outing editors' real-world identities and for 2) publishing malicious, disparaging and potentially libelous information about living people, when we do the same in mainspace, talk space and project space alike (e.g. the archives of this very committee.) What is is they say about motes vs. beams?Proabivouac 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse. Picaroon (t) 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/2/0/0)

  • Accept. Is it being asserted that WP:NPA applies to articles? That's absurd. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; I see no need for a new case here, as we can deal with this particular issue in the THF-DavidShankBone one. Kirill 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Accept. Kirill 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The Committee is appointed to deal with disruptive user conduct not to write policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not being asked to write policy; we're being asked to clarify an earlier ruling. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our rulings are case specific, intended to be a guide for similar situations, but not the law of the land. We do not need a new case to make this point. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, to look at the behavior of all parties. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject Since James F. now supports the idea, back to my original thinking that handling this outside of a new case is better. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I disagree with Mackensen, however - the suggestion that NPA applies to articles is well beyond merely "absurd". James F. (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a post script, the MONGO decision definitely needs re-working. It was meant in good faith, but... James F. (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It now seems that we will deal with this as a clarification, below. James F. (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Clarification is good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. We need to clarify & try to strike a sensible balance between competing interests here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Njyoder 2

Initiated by Crossmr at 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Njyoder has been notified [25].
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The individual was previously the subject of an arbcom case for this behaviour. It can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder. I should clarify that I also sought input if it was necessary to repeat the same DR steps for the same behaviour and was not only told it was unnecessary but there was precedent for this Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarification, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2.

Though there is some evidence that DR was tried: Talk:PayPal#Request_For_Comment:_Criticism_and_PayPalSucks.com only to be rejected by the user when others gave their opinion 2 random people dropping in, each with a single, brief comment, and not really providing Wikipedia policy/guideline based reasoning isn't consensus.. He dismisses the only input received from the people responding to his RfC because they did exactly what they should have. Came to the article and gave their opinion as they saw it. There is no requirement that they hang out and debate it endlessly.[26]. Given his past behaviour and the fact that he's dismissing the very DR he initiated, there was no evidence that any further DR would be of benefit here.

In addition CBDunkerson made an attempt to reach out to this individual to explain proper behaviour and proper sources which he promtply ignored as well [27].

Statement by Crossmr

I encountered this individual on the talk page of Paypal where a debate ensued about proper sources, and external links. During the course of this debate Njyoder engaged in multiple personal attacks and disruptive editing practice. Even to the point where he admits things violate policy but edits them in to the article anyway. There were constant accusations of wikilawyering, lieing, bad faith, etc. The bulk of this can be found at Talk:PayPal#Request_For_Comment:_Criticism_and_PayPalSucks.com and the two or three sections below. Diffs would be numerous from the talk page alone. outside of that there are edit summaries like this [28] and he makes disruptive edits like this where he admits an individual fails the requirements laid out by policy yet edit wars to include the material anyway [29]. he's violated 3RR to push in sources which he admits fail WP:V [30], and there are several more examples of personal attacks in Talk:IntelliTXT#Ryan_Block_article. This behaviour seems to be a continuation of the previous behaviour he was sanctioned for. Another user tried to point out on his talk page what constituted appropriate sources[31] but he ignored that as well and continued to edit war to include those in the paypal article until it was protected.

Statement by Njyoder

This is an absurd abuse of process. He is trying to use arbcom to rule on a content dispute, he's even arguing it here. He has tried repeatedly to argue hypertechnica, wikilawerying points in line with the essay attached to WPIAR and the bureaucracy section of WP:NOT. Instead of trying something like mediation, an RFC or any form of compromise, he reported the content dispute to AN/I (ironic since he violated 3RR before all of this) and when he didn't get his validation there (someone even explicitly disagreed that my edits are disruptive and he ignored it), he went straight to here. He has tried no other methods of dispute resolution and the arbcom case he lists is completely unrelated to this, both in terms of who is involved (just crossmr and me) and the articles.

On the other hand, I created an RFC for the article (very little participation from that) and tried linking the article from other pages to get people involved. I made an effort to get others involved and didn't resort to administrative action except when he violated 3RR. When I wrote an essay on WP:RS and engaged in polite debate there (a debate that originated in WP:V), he decided to drop in on both of them just to harass me. He started responding to various people who agreed with me just to repeat his original propositions stating that he thought I was wrong--not actually arguing his propositions, only stating them. He also used it to accuse me of soapboxing and POV pushing. I told him to please stop commenting (with the word "please") on the essay if he's not going to debate the matter and then, instead of stopping or admitting error, he commented saying that I was wrong to OWN the article by asking him to please engage in debate on my essay or stop running around accusing me of soapboxing.

I'm fully willing to do mediation or even better, try some other method to get others involved in the debate (instead of a me vs. crossmr) setting, as my other attempts didn't gather many people. Using the notice boards or trying other RFCs may work and possibly other methods I'm not familiar with, as it would be very helpful to get others involved.

My so-called 'disruptive edits' are just me disagreeing with him. I never admitted to violating policy and at best that's hyperbole and a violation of AGF. In fact, I was specifically arguing that even under his logic, one of these points would qualify as an exception to the RS guideline--meaning I disagreed with his interpretation and strict, rigid wikilawyerring requirements regarding policy and guidelines, not that I was deliberately violating them.

-Nathan J. Yoder 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that consensus by definition requires discussion and discussion isn't making a signle comment and leaving. He knows this. CBD actually stated things disagreeing with crossmr and crossmr ignored this entirely. I acknowledged that CBD disagreed with some of what I said, and I acknowledged this and addressed it to him and crossmr. Crossmr is clearly beind disingenuous and dishonest here and is abusing process to prematurely bring this to trial--It seems now that he reazlies people will reject this as premature, he will dig up any random edits he can find of "dispute resolution"--but dispute resoluton clearly isn't two random people making brief disagreement with me ony one single point and one other person partially disagreeing with me. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Renamed section. We use numeric numbers to indicate cases regarding the same subjects. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/0)

Liancourt Rocks disputes

Initiated by Wikimachine at 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

(There may be more interested, but so far these are the only ones that are active)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Wikimachine

This Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks article has troubled so many over the last 2 years - it needs arbitration. It’s not just one single disagreement or requested move – it’s the subject in its entirety. Unless the arbitration committee draws a clear line over what is POV and what is NPOV, what is acceptable and what is not, what is prescription and what is description, and what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, these POVs will continue to ravage the article with revert wars while hiding behind Wikipedia’s procedural & policy-based shields. They make a change on the article that is being discussed about in the talk page, and then when we revert they say we’re reverting against consensus when in fact the change was based on no consensus to begin with & changes require consensus to begin with. And when we (in the latest case it is "I") revert, "they" suddenly multiply from what was 2 editors in dispute to 4 - it's so perfectly coordinated . But the whole situation is us vs. them - no actual thing as consensus (they agree amongst themselves & then say "consensus") l consensus here - it's just a cold war with revert wars & 3RR ban being the leverage. In the end, this is about how many guys you have on your side able to participate in a revert war & 3RR but you've got to run a movie to make it all seem legitimate. (in the last 2 years, they never agreed on anything or never worked out a compromise & the only thing that would force them to was the poll - unless they have a compromise that is just as bad as the original). In fact, the entirety of the Liancourt Rocks talk page & the archives is the evidence that so many other steps throughout the last 2 years have been tried by the both sides. No one is ever satisfied and some main players here don't do anything else other than to edit on the Liancourt Rocks talk page (i.e. Opp2 & Clownface). (See this article to test & see my neutrality) These ppl (JPOV & KPOV) are too lazy or obsessed with their POVish beliefs that they refuse to add but emphasize certain points (for example, the most recent: instead of controlled & claimed, they want "claimed-claimed, and controlled" in the 1st paragraph of intro when these things are plainly explained in the 2nd para of intro & thoroughly covered in the main body - in order to emphasize that the Japanese claim is on equal level as Korean claim over the island & to imply illegitimacy behind Korean control - why would any country claim a territory that it's already controlling?).

The most recent conflict is on the intro - (2 versions advocated here) (rv1rv2 - they take turns reverting, this happened since they made their accounts, see contribs). I never agreed with the proposed introduction from Komdori, LactoseTI, and Phonemonkey & I was never aware of the change on the article that was unilaterally made by Opp2 (notice POV with Japan coming first, S. Korea coming 2nd). All throughout the talk, I disagreed with many things that make up Opp2's version & the fixes thereafter: Moreover, I did not know that there was any change made in the main article: I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about And then Komdori replies: "A half dozen or so editors worked" - oh yeah the 6 editors listed above - 4 vs 3 -that sure is "worked over" "a lot went into". None of us agreed with anybody else & those 4 LactoseTI, Komdori, Opp2, and Phonemonkey agreed amongst themselves. Komdori says "We don't need your permission." but they do because they have permission from no one else outside their party either.

This article is a very different environment - like Europe, the old alliances are already fixed - there are old timers here who meddle in every dispute (including me). It's not random editors coming in & making edits & contributing to discussions w/ good faith (b/c no other ppl are interested in this dispute except for the nationalists) Everything is fixed & a self-fulfilling prophesy & we're trapped in this framework, & that's why arb is necessary. Whatever we do we're POVs unreasonable nationalists & uncivil (they can make us so). If we go on revert war, we'll be outnumbered. If we continue on talk, we'll be outvoiced & outpolled. Even if they are wrong, it's justified b/c we have to accept all views per NPOV - yet at a closer examination this is not a problem of NPOV but matter of reasonability, reality, and description over prescription. If we accuse them of being unilateral & cheap (this infuriates me) they reply w/ "Wikimachine: why don't we try the other steps first".

2nd dispute: Opp2 wanted to get rid of the word "administer" for S. Korea b/c Japan didn't "administer" in the sense of control but mere paperworks of registering the islets as a province. The way he aimed at this was by searching on google & listing several sites that used "occupy" to describe the situation and the same for "admnister". So, Opp2 says, you must replace all equivalents of "occupy" with "occupy" and "occupy" is the only word you can use b/c it's most neutral b/c Opp2 listed few more websites that use "occupy" rather than "administer". This is Original Research. I want to emphasize that none of our reliable, NPOV, and cooperative editors here - LactoseTI, Komdori, and Phonemonkey attempted to explain to Opp2 that it was original research & actually defended him.

Another is: Last requested move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks at first ended in no consensus. However, they lobbied the admin Husond at his talk page & weeded out several early accounts to just reach the % that another admin holding the previous RM defined as consensus & then overturned the decision. This incident bothers me on two levels - first, they failed to weed out a few of their own early accounts, and second, even when I showed the admin that if he were to consider the illegitimate accounts on Liancourt Rocks side there would be no consensus the admin didn't listen.

3rd dispute: 1) about the info box which contains "administration" section showing Japan & South Korea, their respective provincial titles, etc. 2) originally not there, but somebody put it there to show Japan on top of S. Korea b/c of alphabetical order - which I disagree b/c Liancourt Rocks, whether disputed by Japan or not, is a Korean territory). Shows how vicious & vicious they're. In other words, S. Korea controls the island & therefore is the only country with administrative rights over the island (i.e. ~ tax, census, if we were to say that ppl lived there). Japan can "administer" or "register" the island as "Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane" but that's as far as Japan can ever go & the info box doesn't ask for "administer" in the sense of "register". LactoseTI & Phonemonkey say that "control" does not mean "administrative rights" b/c it could be illegitimate. I see how they link "rights" and "legitimacy" but even with illegit occupation a country can "administer" a territory &, even if LactoseTI's saying that Japanese viewpoint is that the occupation is illegitimate, all info box asks for is just that control.

A related problem is that it's JPOVish to present this Japan-Korea dispute with Japan on equal level with Korea. It's just like (made up) Russia disputing Alaska with the US. Sure, both countries are disputants, but who controls the land, who controlled the land before, which side has better historical evidence (in this case, the ev. that the US bought Alaska from Russia) (in Liancourt Rocks, according to Yale Global, Korea) (a better example is Tsushima Island except S. Korea disputes over it) The simple act of disputing doesn't put the disputer on equal level with the disputed. Even if I concede that Dokdo was Japanese to begin with, it is within Korean territory - just like Tsushima is within Japanese territory. It is unrealistic for Japan to try to take Dokdo - all Japan wants currently is a disputed status & therefore equal level of dispute is JPOVish. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe, but here they prescribe a less accepted view as equivalent to the dominant view. It's cheap b/c they use the NPOV policy that all views must be represented as a leeway to emphasize heavily on JPOV. And this also spills over to the current title of the article -it's more JPOV than NPOV (even if slightly) b/c it challenges Korean claim's legitimacy even when Korea controls the island. It's like changing Tsushima Island to something in English just b/c S. Korea disputes it.

Another thing is WP:CIVILITY - sure both sides use exclamation marks & bolds & few "wth" sometimes, but the other party's superior & condescending attitude really bothers all of us here (we don't do this, however). When accused, they reply "stop being paranoiac", "you're mistaken", etc. For example, I reverted the edits on the info box b/c I thought that the order of administration was based on the alphabetical order of the geographical subjects, not the disputants. And in fact, I reverted myself even before anybody replied back in response on talk page (see this. And then something so ridiculous - the other party - (none could boast as many edits or as long a stay as I) happened - they all reminded of the wikipedia rules! "unfortunately this is not Wikipedia policy" "It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Wikipedia policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline" I even replied "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." But Macgruder goes further, even 1 day after my own revert, "If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K." Oh sure you don't. Then comes the bullseye: "Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you".

Finally, the other side's action is very well coordinated - almost like a conspiracy & wait, we have evidence. Google, Ginnre's talk page, although link is now modified by the forum, Ginnre's talk page, showing the exact forum discussion, deleted due to copyright In short, there are forum discussions in Japanese outside of Wikipedia about Liancourt Rocks - and 2chnet example was a thorough analysis of all KPOV editors on Liancourt Rocks. I can't accuse directly any of them here, but I know that Komdori & LactoseTI are nearby friends and since their first edits they participated & coordinated together in a requested move (see my previous sock accusation data and the previous sock accusation case where I specified 2 links on their first edits [32] [33]. And also their efforts at the previous requested move was very well coordinated & their arguments (made individually & separately) all fit well & were well structured, based on Wikipedia's policies (I was really surprised, so I responded to make things clear for everyone at here). (Wikimachine 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Therefore I'd like for the arbitration to accomplish following things:

  • First decide if the last requested move was legitimate, and if the current title is POV or NPOV (b/c ppl are planning another RM in the future) (look at my analysis of the requested move at this archived link.)
  • Second decide if S. Korea & Japan are disputing over the island at equal level or not or if it's a case similar to Tsushima Island.
  • Third specify which version (b/w the 2 reverts) is better & elaborate on additional compromises & specify certain things that are needed to make the article NPOV.
  • I will also write an alternate version of the article. I think that the many compromises will wear down neutrality of the alternate version, & that it'd be best if the arbitration committee would decide if my alternate version at User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks would be acceptable. (Wikimachine 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

After these things are cleared, it'll be possible for me to work on the article as I am on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (which I aim to make a featured article). You can clearly see that I'm quite NPOV & take interest in article development more than anything like emphasis, I love different viewpoints purely b/c they are interesting, and I try to cite everything --> no WP:OR. (Wikimachine 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by LactosTI

Just a comment--this request is really preliminary in nature. Few if any of the dispute resolution steps have been tried recently (in the last few months) and have nothing to do with the issues at hand (the only dispute resolutions tried recently were a few ultimatums by Wikimachine not to undo his revert like this). Wikimachine also explicitly said he was skipping other forms of dispute resolution because of his bad faith for other editors here ("Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists."). Surely this is a controversial article, so it makes sense that controversy after controversy will crop up as the content develops; still, it's better to work in the framework that is set up (and works!) inside Wikipedia rather than jumping here as a first step.
This case also only lists a handful of the many established editors involved recently, excluding users like Gettystein, Endroit, and Kusunose. The editor filing this request stated on the page he basically wishes to skip the other steps since he doesn't care for the obvious consensus. Wikimachine: Why don't we try the other steps first (along with a big dose of good faith), and see how it turns out? The process tends to go a lot smoother that way. —LactoseTIT 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm totally uninvolved here and have only given the dispute a cursory glance, but based on my experience with similar situations, I'd recommend Arbcom take this case and hand out topic bans liberally on all sides. Asking the parties to engage in further dispute resolution first would be futile here. They've been debating this for years and years, what else would they try now? The article has seen dozens of edits since yesterday alone, most of which were reverts. The most disappointing thing, however, is to look at the talkpage and at the request here, and look at the quality of the debate. These guys have been fighting over those islets for two or three years, and they are still framing their debates in terms of which side is right and which side is wrong! Apparently, people are simply not getting it that this is not what NPOV is all about. If they haven't learned that yet, why would we expect they learn it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

Just for further information, I just blocked Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) indefinitely as this was their seventh block for violating the 3RR rule. My reasoning being that they are clearly unwilling to comply with the basic editing rules that we are all expected to follow. I haven't studied the issue in any detail but there is clearly an ongoing problem. Strange that user RFCs haven't previously been attempted. Obviously, I'd be more then happy to unblock them to allow participation in any arbitration case, or even, if there is a sufficient commitment to behave in future. Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Opp2

I think Wikimachine is violating WP:OWN.
<CASE1:Obstruction of consensus>
I presented sources of the third-party that used "occupation" as present situation of the islands. And, I proposed the use of "occupetion" that was a general term than "control" and "administration". [34]

  • The first rebuttal reason of Wikimachine was a grammar.[35]
  • The second rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is hit number of google search. [36]

I confirmed it to the native speaker because my English is poor. He answered that there was no grammatical problem. [37] And, I didnot preset the number of google serch as a evidence and source. Wikimashine even did not make an excuse, and presented opposite thirdly reason.

  • The third rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is only repeated with JPOV without presenting evidence that is JPOV.[38]
  • The forth rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is Original Reserch, though I have presented sources and he didn't presente.[39]
  • The fifth rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is difference in Tsushima.

ETC.
Wikimachine changes his opposite reasons as follows as follows. He never presented neither evidence nor the source that we had to use the term of "control" or "administration". He is only obstructing consensus.　This is a similar case.[40] Wikimachine changes his opposite reasons as follows as follows.
<CASE2:Sockpuppets recognition>
When there is an inconvenient user for Wikimachine, he recognizes them as Sockpapet. And, he does not try to check user, and to exclude specific ID by his original standard.

Wikimachine is violating WP:OWN. --Opp2 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Four net votes to open are noted. To open Tuesday absent further developments. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

  • Reject. The Committee does not handle content disputes. Kirill 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reject; content dispute. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to look at user behavior. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept (Of course there is a content disupt, but there is also an obvious problem with achieving NPOV through mutual effort). Fred Bauder 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, Look at all parties to see if a topic ban or other restrictions will be helpful as this dispute is longstanding. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Fred. James F. (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, but only to look at user behaviour. SimonP 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

User:Proabivouac

Proabivouac (talk · contribs) asserts that this notification [45] on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard violates WP:HARASS. He has emailed me asserting that reverting his removal (as several people did) is linking to an attack site, outing and harassment. Since the notice appears to be an official one his problem would appear to be with ArbCom. I have suggetsed several times that he take it up with the arbitrators, but he seems to prefer debating this with me by email, which is not going to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To wit, "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives."
That's your contract with your volunteers. That's the policy you're supposed to uphold, and there's nothing in any other policy, including WP:Probation, which contradicts or abrogates it. I followed the policy, your agents broke it. If you wish to attack pseuds, go on ahead, but please leave living people alone.Proabivouac 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous - Proabivouac could easily have avoided this consequence by:

  1. Notifying ArbCom of his username change at the time - though that would still have caused issues with the practicality of enforcing the probation
  2. Continuing to edit by his prior account name until his probation expired, then starting a new account
  3. Not editing at all until his probation expired, then starting a new account

It seems odd to object now that the covert change has been discovered when one failed to be honest and up-front at the beginning. Probation is not given out lightly by ArbCom and evading it (even where the name change was for an unrelated-legitimate purpose) is equally seriously. Effectively we are back at square one. The question remains: can the probation be adequately enforced with only a "select" number of people aware that it applies to Proabivouac and not his prior identity? If not, I think he needs to avoid editing with any account other than that under probation until the expiry of the probation. WjBscribe 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we could inform the community of the fact and terms of Proabivouac's probation while still preserving his privacy: User:Proabivouac is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. Tom Harrison Talk 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any issues related to the probation can only arise when its terms are breached. If they prove not to, then who cares the details. El_C 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus in regards to user:Halibutt behavior

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [46][47] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.--Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [48], [49], [50]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He only received those comments after posting a 1000+ word rant calling everyone in a row trolls, ultras, morons, idiots, nationalists, etc etc. on your talk page. That it was not an outburst of frustration is proved by five of his postings of the same content. The mess on Narutowicz page started not after he expanded it, but after he unilaterally moved it without any discussions knowing perfectly well that it will be challenged (we been there so many times before to assume otherwise). While his productive edits are welcome, such distruptive behaviour is certainly not. Renata 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got the order of the events a bit wrong. 1st, Halibutt expands the article. 2nd, he moves it as per his sources. 3rd, move war erupts, with Halibutt getting flamed at talk for daring to move the article he destubbed and expanded. 4th, Halibutts post the "rant" complaining about the editors who flamed him. 5th, one of the editors who flamed him complains here about the rant. As far as I see it, the problem would never appear if certain editors would try to assume good faith and talk to the editor who expaned the article and presumably knows a thing or two about the subject - before they started flaming him and accusing of various things for daring to move the said page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brief note. As per the obvious problem (above) where it is unclear indeed "who is more wrong" as well as another "Request for clarification" (see #Piotrus below), I would thoroughly welcome ArbCom taking the case back, analyzing the editors' behavior (including mine) and render a meaningful judgment to replace or add to the too vague one rendered and voted earlier. ArbCom took upon itself one a very messy case and in the end produced a non-decision whose consequences are bound to bring up these endless "clarification requests". I was tempted to start such requests on my own several times and decided not to since I did not want to be seen as the one who does not let the sleeping dogs lie, bygones be bygones, etc. The fact is that all dogs are awake and the proof is that these requests continue to pop up. Perhaps it is inevitable that the case needs to be brought to a more meaningful closure. Even if such would keep "an amnesty" intact, clarifying what parties misbehaved, which parties "are reminded" and what the offenses were are especially needed in view of the outright defiance of the involved editors to even admit to any wrongdoing. --Irpen 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often disagree with Irpen. This is not the case here, I completly share his sentiments.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish editors or single Polish editor that is the first question. Violation of WP:AGF or violation of Wikipedia rules (like WP:RM) is another. POV bashing or contributions is a third. Generalization or research - that means specific, but by no means selective details is fourth.Knowing the subject or googling on occasion is fifth. And please WP:AGF - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not using metaphors like knives - I'm just asking direct questions.--Lokyz 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.
Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [51] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BADSITES / NPA in articles

In #BADSITES above, Mackensen writes, "We're not being asked to write policy; we're being asked to clarify an earlier ruling," to which FloNight responds, "We do not need a new case to make this point," and James F. adds, "the MONGO decision definitely needs re-working." Would it be more appropriate to ask for a clarification here? If so, I so ask the committee to clarify the extent to which WP:NPA applies to articles. ←BenB4 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a try:
The No Personal Attacks policy, as it clearly states throughout the page, applies to comments, not to articles.
I'm trying to be succinct to avoid confusion, but I could expand it:
The No Personal Attacks policy applies to comments. It cannot be applied to articles as they are not appropriate venues for comment on Wikipedia editors qua editors. External sites and their appropriateness for articles are covered under the Sourcing and Referencing policies.
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough. AFAIK we are supposed to link only to reliable sources (or, at least, I only link to RS), which should preclude Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review. These hives of scum and villainy are hardly reliable sources in any sense of the word: it's hard to think of a valid reason for linking to them in the first place. Even in cases of "Wikipedia Review proves that X really did say Y", if Wikipedia Review is your only source for this, chances are that nobody cares anyway. Moreschi Talk 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Navel-gazing and lotus-eating is inappropriate for encyclopædia articles.
James F. (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA is about Conduct, not about Content. Something applied to user behavior has nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Judge the article on its own bad quality or lack of value, don't try to apply policies or guidelines never intending to be used for article purposes. bastique 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this. Much clearer than what I wrote. :-)
James F. (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, new suggestion from David G., plus some tidying:
WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behaviour have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Judge articles strictly on their content in a disinterested editorial manner; don't try to apply community policies or guidelines not intended for article policies, don't consider one's own opinions of or experiences with the subject of an article.
Input still requested. :-) Will harangue some interested parties.
James F. (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the interested parties will say that they'll provide their input in the context of the new case. Newyorkbrad 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proof will be in the pudding. If ArbCom does not open a case to consider edit warring by various parties on various articles, and only publishes this clarification, will it stop the edit warring? You may want to look at recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. The idea that applying NPA and attack site link removal to article space is "beyond absurd" doesn't seem to have percolated through to the disputants there. Or at Overstock.com either, where the current state of the article is to have obfuscated the name and removed all links to the site that forms a major part of the article, in the name of NPA. Thatcher131 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that "beyond absurd" hasn't percolated down to the little people yet, it's that arguments by assertion aren't very persuasive. Tom Harrison Talk 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Arbcom, it is likely that never once did it occur to them that anyone would take this specific principle (not even a remedy), reinterpret it, stick it in a policy applying to editorial behaviour, and then apply it to article content. Risker 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO were posted in mainspace. They were links to ED in the article on ED, presumably as critically necessary for NPOV there as at Judd Bagley. It seems a bit thin to say now that nobody thought this would be taken to apply to article content when the original ruling applied to article content. Tom Harrison Talk 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article has long since been deleted, but I will certainly take your word for it, Tom. You may well be right that Arbcom was thinking in the particular case of ED that it would apply to article space. At the same time, the notability of the subject was hardly on the same line as Michael Moore, where links to his home page were removed because they were an "attack site." Deleting the ED article was not particularly unreasonable, with or without the links present. I can't imagine developing consensus to delete the Michael Moore article, and the lack of a link to his website would indeed be poor editorial judgment. Risker 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you think deciding that "all parties erred, none are chastised" in two months' time will fix that problem?
James F. (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Let's see what happens now. Thatcher131 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question though, would linking to an attack site possibly considered to be a BLP vio? Kwsn(Ni!) 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question - recent changes to the WP:BLP policy suggest that anything relating to a living person on any page anywhere in the encyclopedia that could possibly be construed as a BLP violation may be removed at any time. Risker 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't have anything to do with this issue. The reason antisocialmedia.net was obfuscated in Overstock.com is not that it was an attack on Overstock.com, it was that it contained attacks on Wikipedia editors. Use of sources and links in articles is governed by policies like use reliable sources. WP:NPA is only supposed to govern how editors interact with one another. When one editor says to another editor, "You suck and I can prove it because somewebsite says so [link]" that's a personal attack. Putting michaelmoore.com or donmurphy.com as external links in the articles about those people is not a personal attack by one editor on another editor, no matter what the content of the web site is. Thatcher131 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up to a point. Michaelmoore.com and donmurphy.net are both authoritative sources about notable individuals, neither of them serves primarily to attack. Other sites, with antisocialmedia being a particularly vivid example, but also including wikipediareview and encyclopedia dramatica, have absolutely no redeeming encyclopaedic merit; none of them has anything that we could actually use in an article, so it's much harder to see how any link to them could be valid anywhere. We had a problem in Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about links to an attack blog run by someone in her constituency, it took some time to get that out. That is the kind of situation covered by BLP. ASM is more of a grey area, in that it doesn't attack any article subject, but it is a site which exists primarily to pursue a vendetta, and it does so in a particularly nasty way. There is pretty much nothing we can learn of value by studying Bagley's critique, since his beef is basically that he was not allowed to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:NPOV and this is not fixable. Bagley is looking to create dissent and drama, and succeeding admirably. His complaint is, and always was, baseless; as Fred said to him, others may have committed minor sins, but he has committed major sins in retaliation; I'd add that he has committed these sins with entirely base motives. We have a guideline that says not to bring external disputes to Wikipedia. We should not ignore those on the losing side of a dispute who then choose to take it off Wikipedia in an attempt to end-run around policy. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the bigger problem with ASM is that omitting the site's name is conspicuous, since every citation names it. And as far as "bringing external disputes to Wikipedia", that is exactly the problem with the whole BADSITES non-policy. Without it, we say "Bagley made this site ASM with attacks on WP-ites as part of this larger dispute," and be done with it. What we are getting instead is that BADSITES is being used as a reason/excuse/pretext (depending on how much "good faith" rope you are willing to grant) to control the content of Wikipedia based upon Bagley's attacks. The Anne Milton case has merits as a parallel, but I notice that in her case the source does not name the site. The question of who was behind the blog in her case also doesn't seem to have become a matter of note, whereas in the ASM/Bagley case the importance of the site is precisely that Bagley is behind it. And for those who have their scorecards out, ASM plays off an existing dispute between factors on Wikipedia and various people who have been expelled from here over a particular person who is involved in the disputes around overstock.com and who may or may not be a Wikipedia editor who is participating in these discussions as if he were not an involved party. Just to make things worse, the WR/ED people have a bee in their bonnet about this guy's identity, and if memory serves me, one of the players on WR is also involved in the same disputes that overstock.com is stirring up.
There is clearly room to discuss how much emphasis is placed upon all these connections, especially when we are talking article space. The issue that I see, however, is that we keep running the risk here of sacrificing accurate reportage of the material in order to keep the "external disputes" out, because the disputes aren't really entirely external now. Putting us in the position of suyppressing cited material in order to protect our own is putting us in the position of risking another black mark on our reputation. If someone else is able to demonstrate that certain key ASM allegations are correct, the business press will be able to twig us as (perhaps unwitting) participants in someone's illegitimate financial maneuvering. We need to strike a middle course here, between pretending the allegations don't exist and appearing to endorse them. It seems to me that this course is best followed by naming Bagley (which I think has to be done no matter what), naming the site, and sketching out who (real world) is being attacked wihtout going into detail about what's claimed about that persons' Wikipedia activity. And this all has to be set within the context of Overstock.com's larger securities issues. We surely don't have to repeat the allegations, and there's no way at all that we can't leave enough of a trail for people to find those allegations. Mangoe 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not apply in this circumstance, as BLP is just a guideline that requires NPOV to be followed more strictly in certain circumstances.
Using sources is required by NPOV. Failing to mention a source, or, worse, failing to use it, would be a violation of NPOV. Claiming that a source is an "attack site" is a suggestion that it fails to meet the concept embodied in "use reliable sources" and other such guidelines; I has nothing to do with personal attacks on contributors, as that is a guideline for the behaviour of editors in engaging in comment on- and off-wiki, not in writing content.
James F. (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WP:BLP applies to all content referring to living individuals. Actually, not censored notwithstanding, I would say it is inappropriate to link to sites which prominently attack people, whether editors or not; hate speech sites, for example. But that's just me. Here, we have an editor who feels personally attacked by the presence of the links. We should be sensitive to that, and not make statements of faith that we should link For Great Justice or something, we really need to be more nuanced than that. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does BLP apply to me? Does it apply outside the article space? Tom Harrison Talk 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James, you should definitely not bother opening a case if all you're going to do is say, "everyone messed up, no one gets punished." However, don't expect a mere clarification to carry much weight. [52] [53] Thatcher131 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want such a ruling, but that is what is likely to come out of this, as all ArbCom-watchers will known. And given how our words are twisted to the purposes of those that use them, will there really be any great merit in seemingly re-writing the previous ruling. Clarifications are meant to have the same "weight" as any other official decision from the Committee.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle, James F.; however, this interpretation of WP:BLP (as well as WP:HARASS) has already been used in user space, archived pages, RFAR archives, other project space, and throughout article space (including talk) to remove perceived attacks against WP editors. I don't think a clarification of the previous case is going to be sufficient to put paid to such practices, although certainly such an addition to the meta policy is important and valuable. Risker 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me an excellent point - even under the "it doesn't apply to the article space" clarifications, discussion of these links becomes difficult. "Should we mention antisocialmedia.net by name" and "Should we mention the site by name" are two very different questions, as the latter cannot be answered by anyone not already familiar with the situation. This makes things like RFC and requests for attention very difficult in these situations.
To my mind, the problem is that NPA is a policy that, at its core, is designed to attack bad faith behavior. The inclusion of the attack sites material changes it so that it now attacks good faith behavior. But it is not equipped to do that, nor should it - good faith behavior should virtually never be reverted on sight. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are still difficulties in modifying our policies so that those unable to follow the most important - use common sense - are still able to contribute. I'm not sure that that is an efficient or deseriable use of our time, however. (Or, in brief, discussion of valid contributions to an article are always appropriate on said article's talk page. If you don't like it, don't view it.)
On the larger point, I think Phil has it just right here: the NPA behavioural rule does indeed apply to situations where you're already assuming bad faith, and that that isn't appropriate as a rule to apply to editing at large.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate to say it was used in most of those places to claim that those links were attacks. I like the general drift of this clarification, but even if articles themselves are placed off-limits, there's still the problem that BADSITES has been invoked to cripple discussion of the sites in question by censoring citations to material on the sites. Presumably it could also be invoked to (for instance) keep Don Murphy's site from being referred to in any discussion context.
The thing that is causing all the disruption is the imputation that any link to a site where there is an "attack" (whatever that might be) is thus also an attack. So someone writes an article on Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who is emphatically notable) and includes the obvious extern link to her site. Time passes, and in the blog there she makes a post about Wikipedia, and down in the comments, someone names an editor here. So all of a sudden, the link is ex post facto an attack. Well, that's just nonsense. All that matters is the context in which a link occurs, and not the link itself. Mangoe 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, such an application of any rules would be nonsense on stilts.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification regarding links to so-called attack sites in main article space is a very useful thing to have, but it then still leaves unsettled the separate question of what sort of links are appropriate, and in what circumstances, in places such as talk, user, and project pages, where Wikipedia-centered navel-gazing is appropriate, and giving the appearance of suppressing criticism is not the best image. *Dan T.* 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what consensus is for. We did not form the Committee to be the Herod of community. We aren't here to set policy, and people should stop asking us to do this. If the community really does want the Privy Council to go ahead, they should talk about doing so, not appealling to us due to a lack of anyone else.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Overstock page, where this is a live issue, I pointed out that naming ASM neither adds nor detracts from the article. However, since it is in large measure devoted to attacks against and "outing" of Wikipedians, NPA tips the scales against including. Currently NPA mandates (or appears to mandate) removal of links from article space. I don't see why it can't be a consideration, however, if the neutrality of the article is not compromised. I think that you can easily adjust NPA to clarify that point. Perhaps something like: "links or references to external attacks should be removed from article space if they do not compromise the neutrality of the article." Then you have your cake and eat it too. If the concern is neutrality and only neutrality, this should rectify that concern.--Mantanmoreland 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it very misleading to say that it adds nothing to the article. It adds something in the same way that the inclusion of the hexadecimal string does in AACS encryption key controversy or the inclusion of the picture of L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting does in Xenu - it adds a level of transparency and thoroughness to the article. Put another way, if someone reading the article thinks "OK, but what is the site?" then we're obviously excluding expected information, which is a problem for the article. Obscuring the site also presents some verifiability issues, and, by extension, some NPOV issues. Certainly, if there were a situation that were genuinely without other consideration the statement "remove the link to an attack site" would hold, but I cannot imagine an editorial situation that was actually so neutral. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened is that another one of my predictions back in the original BADSITES arguments has come to pass: the fact that someone has created an attack website (and that characterization is utterly fair in this case) to discredit someone via Wikipedia, and that site has hit the news. So now we have notable attacks. Which do we choose: censorship, or completeness? If we take the "article" formula being proposed, then we get completeness. If we let Wikipedia is not censored be the governing principle, then we get completeness.
I'd also like to point out that the dispute has affected the accuracy of the article. The situation has apparently changed somewhat since the conflict began, and the "nonlinking" version is no longer correct. Mangoe 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. The "nonlinking" (current) version reads as follows: In January 2007, it was revealed that an executive of Overstock.com was responsible for the creation of anonymous website which attacked critics of Overstock.com, including media figures and private citizens on message boards. Byrne has expressed public support of the site. That is how it has read for a long time, and it is accurate (see quote from the Times posted by Thatcher on the talk page).
Phil, that paragraph is carefully sourced, and there are no possible verifiability issues. If we omit "antisocialmedia.net" so as to not link to harassment of an editor, there is no loss to the reader. As you point out, the name of the site is in the sources. As for neutrality, you keep baldly asserting that its inclusion makes the article less neutral but you have not demonstrated how this is so. I'd say exclusion or inclusion is a wash. --Mantanmoreland 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a separate content issue, in that the site-name-less version whitewashes Bagley's (and therefore overstock.com's) involvement in the site. Even on the basis of the citations, what it says is inadequate. So it seems I was mistaken, and that the contested paragraph was always inaccurate when it didn't name the site. All this is a bit irrelevant; we are still stuck against the reality that the site's attacks upon you are notable. It may be necessary for ArbCom to consider that question, it appears, because even if BADSITES is finally repudiated I anticipate conflict on that specific point. Mangoe 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "content issue," and never was until a half-dozen editors never previously interested in the company began adding the name of the site to the article. No previous editor on the page, including the Bagley sock who was just banned, ever insisted on adding the name of the site. You may disagree with omission from the article but continually calling it "inaccurate" when it is not is disruptive and adds nothing to the discussion.
Since you may not be familiar with Overstock.com, I would like to point out that the company is the subject of two SEC investigations and a massive amount of negative and even lurid publicity. The Bagley misdeeds are small potatoes compared to what this company is up to and the article describes everything in a balanced and neutral fashion. I can't imagine the ArbCom forcing upon this article a great deal of negative material on this one matter when there is so much more of greater significance albeit less titillation value.--Samiharris 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate for it to read along these lines: "In January 2007, it was revealed that, Judd Bagley, director of Communications for Overstock.com, was responsible for the creation of anonymous website which attacked critics of Overstock.com, including media figures and private citizens on message boards." I fail to understand the reticence to give his name, when every source in the matter does. It doesn't seem to be a matter of relative importance, either, but simply one element of a larger conflict over stock manipulations. Mangoe 03:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is neither more or less accurate or neutral than the consensus version that was there for months and was not disputed by any of the editors of the article. Actually it is slightly less precise than the current version because it gives his title as "director of communications" when he was originally "director of social media" and then recently "director of communications." This is an encyclopedia, not Trivial Pursuit. Are we going to bang out in "Requests for arbitration" every editorial decision about the naming or not naming of some minor corporate officer made by editors in an article months ago? --Samiharris 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those details are easily polished, and indeed I see someone has done so in response to the Judd Bagley AfD closure. Again, I continue to be puzzled by the urge to play down this incident, as it has proven to be really quite easy to cite this thing. And I am coming around to the view that there is a POV problem here. I just don't see the sources saying that this is unimportant; indeed, from what I can see they view this as an interesting twist in the tactics of dubious stock manipulation. It might be unimportant in the long run, but WP:CRYSTAL applies in that direction too. Mangoe 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we probably need an unambiguous ArbCom statement to the effect that the community, by its normal means of consensus, has the right to enact whatever policy on this issue it deems proper (within the bounds of core foundation policy), and that it's not proper to cite any past ArbCom decisions as if they were binding precedent that trump consensus, as has been frequently done. *Dan T.* 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a problem here in that we leave the door open for linking in mainspace to offsite content which is defamatory or attacks living individuals, so we should probably agree (as editors, not through ArbCom) some clarification to WP:BLP which presumes against linking to sites which have significant amounts of attack or denigration, unless there is a compelling reason to link. The onus is always on those proposing content to justify it and achieve consensus, where that consensus is absent, and where the content attacks people who are, incidentally, Wikipedia editors, then pressing zealously for links may, with some justification, be thought to be harassment. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this is a problem; I cannot see how we (individually, corporately, ecumenically...) can be held responsible for what people do on other sites, any more than Google can be held responsible for people using it to search for defamatory material. If someone has a problem with material on some site that we link to, their recourse is to approach those who control the offending site, since the material is there whether we link to it or not.
And that those attacked are Wikipedia editors is not the least bit incidental. It is a major threat to our credibility. In almost every case thus far, the editor being criticized in the attacks has shown up to invoke this non-policy, generally without any admission that they are an interested party. I just don't think we can afford this; again, this is something which is going to show up in citable media someday: that these policies are being used to protect questionable activity from external criticism.
Almost anything can be done to harass, if it is done persistently enough; one man's harrassment is another's annoyance. Yes, I'm sure it's annoying that we keep complaining about these deletions; and I find it annoying that the matter keeps coming up. Life is full of annoyances; the way to get rid of this one is to resolve the matter once and for all. Mangoe 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many rules regulating external sites, and particularly their application to living people. That tends to toss out linking to these "attack sites" long before they land in this "badsites" controversy.--Samiharris 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then enforce those other rules, where it's appropriate to do so... we don't need any separate BADSITES-style rule at all. *Dan T.* 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me the sticking point is what denotes offsite content, ie an attack page or a BADSITE that has attack pages but with the attack pages not being directly linked to from wikipedia (as is the case with Don Murphy's website) and that is what the arbcom need to give clarification over, SqueakBox 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that, just now, User:JzG has added a Wikipedia-criticism site to the spam blacklist without discussion, despite the general guideline that such things need to be discussed on the talk page. This seems to be yet another of the many attempts to get some spawn of WP:BADSITES to be treated as policy. *Dan T.* 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a "wikipedia criticism site" by any realistic or sensible definition of the term. The site operator's sole criticism of Wikipedia is that it would not let him pursue his Holy Crusade, and I blacklisted the link (on en: only, not in the main spam blacklist, although I am a meta sysop) because it is not used in mainspace but was being used in project and user space in a way that was causing real distress and harassment to a long-standing editor. It is very hard to think of an analogy without violating Godwin's Law; we are under absolutely no obligation to take seriously, still less facilitate, the delusional outpourings of sociopaths. But don't worry, Dan, Viridae immediately removed it, so you're free to link to yet another pile of fetid excreta masquerading as critique. These are not "so-called" attack sites, they are attack sites. There is a huge difference between something like Wikitruth which at least tries to be fair some of the time, and has some kind of commitment to making Wikipedia better, and ASM, which exists solely to pursue one man's mission to edit in violation our core policies. If you thik Bagley wants to make Wikipedia better, then you are deluded. He wants to make Wikipedia support his agenda, and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a straw man argument to claim that I'm saying that this guy is trying to make Wikipedia better, since I've never claimed any such thing (though we all must be careful about publicly imputing derogatory motives to a living person, under BLP and NPA and AGF... even banned editors retain a right not to be unnecessarily attacked). My arguments are more along the lines of (1) Even if somebody is doing someting for totally biased and self-serving motives... even if he's a completely evil person... that doesn't mean that everything in their line of argument is wrong. Sometimes the "bad guys" serve a useful role in their ability to find and publicize things that the "good guys" are doing wrong, which others on the "good" team will be inclined to shove under the rug out of personal and team loyalty. Perhaps Superman really needs a Lex Luthor around, else his unchecked power will eventually get to his head and be abused (there have actually been several stories in the comics along those lines). Things the "bad guys" say certainly need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, and independently verified before any action is taken, but that isn't the same as automatically dismissing and suppressing them. (2) And if the attacks are totally without merit and truth, then why be afraid of them? Best to confront and refute them openly, or just ignore them, but not give the appearance of trying to cover something up. *Dan T.* 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.
  1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
  2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
  3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?
ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.
I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:
  1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
  2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
  3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.
The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. See below.
As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 9 active Arbitrators, the majority is 5.
Support:
  1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=157133821"