Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Original Case comments

Statement by David D.

This comment from MONGO in the Kelly Martin RfC did appear out of the blue. I participated on that talk page and it did seem unwarranted at the time. I have had no interaction with rootology, although I did support the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica and from this perspective I would say I am neutral. I did noticed rootology was very keen to keep it alive and from memory, I would say it bordered on pestering. Nevertheless MONGO's accusations may well need to be tempered. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

Rootology and Badlydrawnjeff are members of Encyclopedia damatica first, members of Wikipedia second. It is thus understandable where all of the wikidamatica around here is coming from. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by TheronJ

I'm not sure if this is a good test case or not, but any additional guidance ArbCom can offer on what constitutes "wikistalking" will probably be helpful. TheronJ 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Anomo

Encyclopedia damatica is basically a site where most people there are a hivemind. To me it is a cult. They all appear to act alike and think alike over there.

Wikistalking I believe is only against the rules if done for harassment and wikistalking is very common on wikipedia where about everyone does this. Anomo 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

I'm a complete outsider to this thing, but saw a lot of it on WP:AN (or was it WP:ANI?). I stronly urge our dear arbitrators to accept the case, because increased stalking and tendentious editing from some editors that come here to wage edit wars and not writing an encyclopedia deserve a reponse from the ArbCom. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

It seems implausible that Rootology's interest in national parks and 9/11 conspiracy theories is independent of Mongo's work in those areas, and Rootology's interest in ED. This request for arbitration looks like another exercise in time-wasting drama. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Kelly Martin

I have long had concerns about MONGO; my impression is that while he's generally a good admin he has a tendency to lose perspective from time to time and become overly emotionally involved. Rootology has twigged my trouble meter almost from the time I first encountered him. I think that Wikipedia would benefit from a thorough examination of the conduct of at least these two editors, and possibly others involved in this case, and therefore encourage the Committee to accept this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Prasi90

To begin with, let me clarify that I am not in any way directly involved with the matter(s) that have led to this request for arbitration being filed. I have, however, been involved with MONGO in several disputes, arising mainly out of my actions here. There ensued a long series of blocks and unblocks (most of them imposed on me by MONGO), after which I eventually changed my trollish ways (and I admit here with due remorse that some of my actions were intolerably inconsiderate) and became, if not the most valuable editor on Wikipedia, atleast a policy-abiding editor. The credit for this change in me goes to those who mentored me in those troubled times-Hamster Sandwich and Fred Bauder among many others, including (in a sense) MONGO himself. It is for due to the fact that I have had a rather long association with MONGO that I believe that my views about this Administrator might be of some use to those hearing this case. In my dealings with him, I found that he was (perhaps) not as neutral as an Administrator should be and often lets his point-of-view interfere in his actions as an Administrator. He often accused me of being an "anti-American bigot" and repeatedly threatened me with "month long blocks" for violating policy by being a "bigot". He also seemed to have (in the words of a participant in this case) certain "cronies" who aided him in his activities. I personally found him to be overly harsh with me in his Administrative activities, possibly as a result of my "anti-American bigotry". I also found/find his habit of protecting the talk-pages of users he blocks rather disturbing. I am not sure if the rather confrontational attitude MONGO assumes is becoming of an Administrator like him, and, as an editor who has been on the wrong side of his blocks on several occassions, I must state that the way he carried out his Administrative actions, described by one user as "power-trips", was more instrumental in adding fuel to the fire (of an already angry, blocked user) rather than reforming the said user. The fact that I changed my ways within a few weeks under the influence of other Administrators is testament to this fact. In MONGO's defence however, he is a valuable contributor to this website and himself lifted the indefinite block he had placed on me after I proved to him my good intentions, which is perhaps an (albeit somewhat isolated) instance of him being benevolent in his dealings with problem users. I am of the view that for MONGO to be relieved of his Administrative access for some period of time would allow him to get a more balanced perspective of his actions here and would be in his best interests as well as those of Wikipedia. Prasi90 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to MONGO, let me clarify to all interested parties that to judge this Administrator's behaviour based solely on his conduct towards me would not be fair since he has (I admit) had to put up with a lot of trolling from me during my "darkest hours" here. Going by that yardstick, I would rate his interactions with me as "good" and would (in all fairness) not be in favour of having MONGO de-sysoped but would prefer if he were to become just a little more polite from now onwards. Prasi90 07:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Prasi90's comments

Arbitrators should be examine the block log and the Rfc that was filed about Prasi90's behavior that led to the long term blocks. Indeed, I did unblock Prasi90 after he promised to behave himself, and I see that since he was unblocked by me, he has indeed edited constructively.--MONGO 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the edits for Prasi90, who was also identified as User:202.177.246.3 (block log) based on this edit and other similar edits, he has done one minor vandalism since being unblocked.

Prasi90 was blocked multiple times, by multiple admins for edits such as the following (as also shown on the Rfc): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]--MONGO 09:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That vandalism was not done by me, it was perhaps someone else using the same IP who was responsible for it-a large number of IPs from the same range as mine seem to be editting that page. In any case, the type of vandalism (nonsense editting) is not characteristic of my past (problematic) history-which mostly involved trolling and more pointed vandalism than the kind seem on the Halloween page. In any case, I want to put my past history behind me and move on. My opinion is that though MONGO is a very valuable contributor and one of the more neutral/fair Administrators, he should make a slight change in his attitude toward his fellow users. Prasi90 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly concede that your IP has probably changed since we last had communication.--MONGO 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SoftPale (talk · contribs)

SoftPale (talk · contribs) has one edit...[13] [14]. I blocked this person when they were using their other account, namely SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) after they showed up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite and posted this personal attack...having not made a single edit in the six months prior to that edit. This editor only had 15 edits total prior to the posting at that Rfc and now posting as SoftPale (talk · contribs) has stated, " I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here." which I take to mean that they haven't been unblocked after emailing arbcom [15]. Please remove their comments from my arbcom until someone from the arbitration committee unblocks them. Additionally, as a indefinitely banned editor, I believe even emails from User:Blu Aardvark are not permitted since he is no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia.--MONGO 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not anticipate that when I opened this case for Tony, who is recused, that my inbox would become an Arbcom branch office. I don't mind, but I hope you all will be forgiving of any mistakes I might make.

Regarding SoftPaleColors, I expect he has the right to add himself as a party if he feels his block was injust. I'm sure the arbitrators will grasp the subtext as well as the text of his statement; I would have suggested to him that evidence would be more persuasive than a statement deprecating the arbitration process. You could certainly make a rebuttal in your evidence section to provide the context to why he was blocked. After reflection I have changed my mind. SoftPale's block is unrelated to Encyclopedia damatica and should be reviewed separately. I will discuss this with him on his talk page.

Regarding Blu Aardvark, he e-mailed me the statement I posted, correctly noting that if he posted it himself he would be immediately blocked. I am aware of the general prohibition against banned users having any say at all on Wikipedia, however, I am not comfortable serving as a gatekeeper deciding what evidence the committee should or should not see. Obviously the arbitration committee is well aware of Blu Aardvark, and if someone from the committee removes his statement (or if they direct me to do it) I will take that as the final word on the matter. I hope this is satisfactory. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SoftPaleColors

Because Mongo's block of SoftPaleColors was not related to the Encyclopedia damatica fracas that spawned this case, I have moved his statement here to the talk page. SoftPaleColors is not a party to the present dispute, and this case is not an excuse for a MONGO pile-on. SoftPale's concerns can be better addressed elsewhere. If the parties feel I have erred here, I stand ready to be corrected. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has used wikistalking on me (and looking at his block log, many many victims) to ban them forever. I was banned for eternity 28 days ago by MONGO and still I received no warning. His entire false reasoning for the block was done by stalking me via my contributions. He banned me because I am a lurker. The real reason to me is that User:Hipocrite is MONGO's sockpuppet. User Hipocrite also wikistalks.

Furthermore, I see that MONGO has a tendency to edit articles that he has a personal involvement in. The whole encyclopedia damatica issue, while the article needed to have personal attacks removed and I feel the article (and website) should have not been created in the first place, he should have been something he turned it over to another administrator.

During his whole time being an administrator, he has pushed his personal feelings onto conspiracy articles. He states here that he works for Homeland Security and he states his Point of View. I feel that the administrative tools serve only harm in his hands and he should reliquish them. I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here. Is there a rule requing that people have to edit wikipedia constantly or are forever banned? SoftPaleColors 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the Worst Sockpuppet Ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Mushroom

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. The privateditor name WAS made by me, long ago, but I've never used it since. That image WAS captured by me, but obviously I had no intention of really obfuscating anything. The obvious editing connection between my other user and myself is ridiculously clear by the small number of edits it did. I was in a freenode IRC chat, and someone asked what all the nonsense was about that I was chatting with, and I sent them the image privately when they asked what all this was about. It apparently got back to the ED people, and they posted it with an old username of mine, but I have no control over that. Why would I be uploading things that would point a clear light at me if I were doing things like that, AND bring about this Arbitration if that were the case? That's just ridiculous. rootology (T) 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Let me recap this:

• You took a screenshot of a page you never edited, containing personal information about MONGO.
• You took it from an account that you used for just three (3) hours.
• You talked to someone on IRC and sent him that same screenshot to explain "what all the nonsense was about" (?).
• That screenshot mysteriously found its way to User:Fuckface at Encyclopedia damatica.
• Fuckface posted that screenshot to ED to harass MONGO.
• You never edited Encyclopedia damatica and you have nothing to do with it.
• The fact that you're so interested in ED is just a coincidence.
• The fact that you tried to prevent the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica article is just a coincidence.
• The fact that you requested the unblock of ED user Weevlos is just a coincidence.
• The fact that you strived to keep links to ED in Wikipedia articles is just a coincidence.

I'm surprised you couldn't come up with a better excuse. Now, here's my theory:

• You are User:Fuckface and you took that screenshot to harass MONGO.
• You made a mistake, forgetting to remove the name from the photo.
• Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Mushroom (Talk) 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

General

There are extremely good reasons why Wikipedia admins should distance themselves admin-powers-wise from events in Wikipedia which they are also participating as an individual editor. These can include:

1. Appearance of conflict of interest / impropriety
2. Actual conflict of interest / impropriety
3. Judgement affected by personal involvement
4. Perception of abuse of power by other participants
5. Loss of respect for Wikipedia and its admins by participants and onlookers
6. Escalating rather than acting to smooth disagreements

Note that several of these are completely independent of the admin's intent, state of mind, and whether their actions are justifyable and defensible from a completely neutral and uninvolved viewpoint.

Even in the best of circumstances, where an admin's actions are clearly within policy and not motivated in any way by revenge or abusive tendencies, the actions present challenges such as the appearance of conflict of interest, perception by blockees that they are being unfairly picked on by someone with superior administrative rights, and that such actions have a much stronger tendency to escalate situations than equivalent actions by uninvolved admins.

Wikipedia admins acting as a body have been slipping clearly towards allowing and even encouraging admins to get more involved administratively in incidents which begin with personal involvement. For all the reasons above, this is a terrible trend. It is in the long term extremely corrosive to admin/editor relations.

It is also completely unnecessary. Every time I have seen an admin post a request for uninvolved admin review on ANI, there has been a prompt and proper enforcement response by another admin. It takes no more time for the original admin to do an ANI posting than it does to institute a properly documented block directly (though admittedly, the uninvolved admin does spend time they would not otherwise have to). Every time an admin takes that step back, the odds that the dispute will go away or be reduced in the future increase significantly.

There seems to be a feeling among many administrators that if they do not personally take these actions in incidents where they are personally involved, great wrongs will go unrighted. This idea is wrong, as above, and dangerous, as further above. Other admins will get involved and deal with problems, if notified. Uninvolved parties handling it does reduce the rate of recidivism and feelings and claims of admin abuse.

It is commonly said by admins that do these blocks that other admins can review their actions and overturn them. That response completely misses the point. The damage to Wikipedia is almost entirely not in the particular block of a particular user - it's in the secondary effects, and particularly the resulting dispute escalations due to perceptions of abuse. Once the involved admin blocks, even if it's overturned five minutes later, the damage is already done.

The practice of admins blocking their own disputants is bad for Wikipedia. Arbcom should acknowledge this and work to move things in the other direction.

Specific

Let me preface the specifics here with a note that despite several past disagreements with MONGO, he is clearly a positive contributor to the project, a positive administrator on the whole, and the notion of desysopping him is ludicrous on the face of it.

With that said;

In my opinion, MONGO has specifically caused several of the general points I make above during his ongoing engagements with editors somehow associated with Encyclopedia damatica. Many people have complained that it looks like he's abusing his powers with these editors. Those editors he's blocked have complained about him abusing them. using administrative powers.

The pattern of his interaction with those admins has also, in my opinion, clearly and blatantly escalated the conflicts on several occations, extended disagreements, escalated situations from impolite disagreements into a blockable offense. None of those would have happened had he not been an administrator, or had another administrator who was not involved been the person who reviewed conduct and imposed blocks.

He also has at times clearly been extremely angry or agitated about events and displayed it inappropriately. [16]

We would not be here with any sort of legitimate policy or behavior questions on either side had at any point in the last couple of months, any administrator who MONGO respects stepped up and said "Leave these guys to me. Point it out to me if you spot something, but let me take care of it for you. Take a breather. You don't personally have to fix this problem."

The ongoing nature of these incidents is the proof of the importance and necessity of the general guideline of administrators avoiding these situations. MONGO has, in defending himself, worsened the situation. Over and over again.

Provocations

Clearly, the ED events have specifically provoked and attacked MONGO. The apparent deeper involvement of some of the other participants of this RfAr in those events is certainly suspicious. The possibility that anyone who's been involved with ED is now a long term troll problem for Wikipedia looms over all of this. The basic truth of this problem has led me to be very cautious in criticising MONGO since the ED incidents started, and in particular avoiding the RFC which was filed. While there are legitimate questions about his actions, there are much clearer provocations and abuses against him, which are not due any benefit of the doubt as to good faith. I do not assume that the current complaintants were the perpetrators of those abuses, but some apparent linkages are very worrysome.

Nonfeasance

This is a terrible terrible concept. Holding anyone responsible for the unprovoked or uninvolved actions of a third party is reprehehsible. In my opinion, that MONGO has even brought it up as a proposal is an indication of the level of anger and agitation that he currently has regarding this series of incidents and his current lack of perspective on the subject matter.

This concept must be squashed deader than a fossilized bug. I urge Arbcom to take up this specific policy point and soundly reject it as WP policy.

What to do

Perhaps -

• Ask MONGO politely but firmly to stand aside and let others deal with it?
• Locate an abuse-responder administrator who hasn't otherwise been involved in ED and get them to take point on any ongoing issues?
• Promulgate policy to push admins to notify and pass rather than personally block?
• Get to the bottom of the claims of responsibility for various ED-site abuses and if WP editors were involved, Arbcom take them to the woodshed and banish them?

My two cents, plus significant inflation.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

George, I don't have to ask anyone to help me when I am being personally attacked. There was only one block I issued against any of the major names in this arbcom and that was to User:Karwynn for reposting personal attacks on an Rfc that was filed against User:Hipocrite. He was warned to not do this, and refused to remove them and was blocked. I not once blocked any of the other major names here in this proceeding (Rootology, Badlydrawnjeff or SchumuckyTheCat). The others blocked may have protested, but examine their edits, recognize they are meatpuppet or sockpuppet accounts and that they did indeed harass me...I don't need to get someone else to go and block them for me. You are confusing this with with a different set of parameters than is declared by WP:BLOCK, which is policy. Read the policy and start assuming good faith on my part.--MONGO 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You write:

I don't have to ask anyone to help me when I am being personally attacked

My point is: you should.

I do not question your good faith. Good faith is not enough. Admins who fight back willy-nilly exacerbate conflict, not resolve it.

Georgewilliamherbert 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor followup. Your edit summary on your last was "this guy has an axe to grind I do believe".

What on earth do you think my well-ground axe is in this matter?

Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nice.--MONGO 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Pavel Vozenilek

Encyclopedia damatica is notable enough to have its article here. Just because ED has satiric or outright vulgar attack pages on their website is not a reason to make nonstandard edits, to incite AfD or to close undecided Afd as Delete. Reaction of the drama lovers from ED is hardly suprise to me.

My recomendation is to undelete the ED article, ignore what ED puts on their front page (it is their website and their audience), dismiss this RfA for good, deescalate the conflict by sticking with standard ways of dealing with vandalism and forbid any wikistalking by involved parties.

Continuing with the dispute would only put more fuel into fire and will show how fragile to disruption Wikipedia is. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify it's notability with reliable references, as the inability to do this was the reason it was deleted. ED posts and encourages their editors and other contributors to post personal information about Wikipedians, a serious privacy issue, and there are numerous articles there that attack wikipedians with libellous commentary. We also don't have articles on Wikipediareview or Daniel Brandts hivemind site for mostly the same reasons we don't have one now on ED. I am hoping we never have another article on this encyclopedia about ED, unless they become so notable we have to, which I don't imagine is likely to happen soon.--MONGO 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We do, however, have an article, as an example, on WikiTruth, which is similar in regards to "articles...that attack wikipedians." The ED article did not actually violate any policies in its mere existence, but it doesn't look like this RfAr is going to touch that, and the cabal isn't going to allow further review, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiTruth is verfiable.[17], [18]--MONGO 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're okay with "attack sites" that meet your personal view on verifability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not okay with them...and it isn't my personal view...it's policy. Millions of websites out there, and you're constant sniping about ED doesn't make me think you understand policy or how it works...this is a wiki...get it?--MONGO 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's policy? Both are attack sites, both at least meet the letter of verifiability. I'm not looking to rerun the thing here, but it's not about me understanding policy, it's me not understanding where you're headed with this currently in your responses to this guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see either of you post evidence that ED meets verifiablity...see the policy.--MONGO 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Links had been supplied through the cource of the AfD that demonstrated that ED merited at the least stub status. rootology (T) 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the community does not agree with that summation.--MONGO 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been my confusion from Day #1. Why the immense hate toward the ED site, and hyperaggressive drive from all to see it gone--even so far as "new" policy and precedent as would be established by Fred's suggestions--but nothing of the same toward Wikitruth et al? The authorization of automatic removal of "any and all" links to a "critical" site is insanely dangerous. It goes back to my example: If the New York Times on their site tomorrow TORCHES Wikipedia, The Foundation, Jimbo, etc., with some scathing expose, do we not link to that article? Or to nytimes.com any longer? Very dangerous ideas of control and censorship being espoused by Fred. rootology (T) 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the hyperagressive drive to see the article kept? Why to see it undeleted, now twice?--MONGO 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave up on keeping the article kept when DRV1 ended--look at my contribs. My point all along has been that the police stating of WP vs. any crticism is dangerous. Answer me this, MONGO, if you could: should WP link to anything that is critical of it? If a news outlet tomorrow does drop an expose bomb on WP that includes personal info, do we not talk about it on WP or link to it? rootology (T) 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

ED is established, has plenty of material and, at least before their current WP obsession, most of the content was quite good. That they post personal information on Wikipedians is their right and their problem.

Late reply on this, for what it worth: the WP content is like a fraction of their articles. I counted back during the AfD, it was like 18-20 out of 3,500. Hardly an obsession. rootology (T) 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This goes OT but I feel the same trend on ED as on Uncyclopedia. The more people come here the worse the content gets. It is probably law of Wikis. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have watched a very similar conflict on Czech Wiki lasting for years, hence my comment. I do not think the ED war was needed - you could ignore the front page or sue them. Looking for justice or revenge via WP is futile and counterproductive, for what I see there and here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the article for deletion, nor did I close the deletion. I didn't close either of the two deletion reviews of this article either. I haven't Rfc'ed or arbcommed anyone on any of this, so the "problem" you have is apparently with the well reasoned closing of the deletion discussion and the deletion reviews, for which I had no part in. In case you don't know this...I did try to ignore it, I did try to avoid confrontation, but when these people came here to Wikipedia to harass me about their bullshit there, then they started the war. I have been trying to get it to end now for six weeks. I have an encyclopedia to write and these people are interfereing with my time to do so. If this sort of thing is going on in the czech wiki for years, then I fear what time has been wasted that could have been better spent.--MONGO 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this appears to be a red herring in this context. Given that it just failed its umpteenth DRV the only thing left for it would be an article specific RfAr or an appeal to Jimbo. I know there are people who disagree with the deletion, but this RfAr is not the time or place, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Until their site gets more press, it's a non issue. Of course, when/if they do, I have to admit I will look forward on principle to it's immediate recreation should they gain notability/noteriety in the press to merit inclusion. rootology (T) 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very boring without drama. Just the facts Ma'am, don't need to look at your cunt. Fred Bauder 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been criticized for this remark, but taking a look at the featured image today http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Image:Woman_Fucking_Computer.JPG it is easy to see I was not far off the mark. Fred Bauder 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of a page which had been temporarily restored as evidence

I recently deleted a page thinking that it was a routine cleanup of an overlooked AFD/DRV decision. I have since learned that it was temporarily undeleted in order to support this case. Please accept my apologies if I inconvenienced anyone. Please let me know if the page is still needed and I will restore it. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Crazyswordsman

I, too, am a bit late to this, but I should probably give my two cents. First, let me say that MONGO is a great contributor to Wikipedia and I acknowledge him for that. Unfortunately, he made some brash decisions in the past few months. MONGO is one of those cases where I would have to say that the ends don't justify his means. Let's start aways back during his first RfC regarding the WTC article. He blocked a user he was involved in a content dispute with. And when it was taken up at WP:AN and WP:RFC, he defended himself by saying that, paraphrased (I'll go look it up in a bit) "two other users agreed with the block so I did the right thing." It doesn't matter how many users agreed to the block. Admins should never block to gain an edge in a content dispute, even if the entire Wikipedia community agrees that the user be blocked. What he should have done was contact outside help, particularly from the Meditation Cabal or someone else. What I would have done if I were an admin and saw what was going on was block both parties for WP:3RR violations. He called the edits by his opponents vandalism, even though they were made in good faith. Honestly, I feel that this was a situation that got out of hand by both parties.

Then there's the whole ED thing. Personally, I think the article was right to be deleted (although I think a blurb in LiveJournal or something is acceptable because notability within a context has been established there). However, I should say that some events leading up to the AFD were uncalled for. ED did something that I don't condone (I don't condone anything they do, I'm an Uncyclopedian) in personally attacking MONGO and displaying it on the front page. However, MONGO responded the wrong way. Instead of taking it up with ED editors and ED admins, he completely messed with the ED article here, removing links to ED and other from the article, and getting many more people involved than needed to be. He even won an "ED sucks" barnstar for his messing with the article (it wasn't vandalism because his edits were made in good faith).

I agree with JZG that MONGO wasn't uncivil to the degree some people say he was. He HAS, however, abused his admin privalages a bit. I personally think WP:ROGUE should be stopped and admins should act constructively at all times. I know MONGO is a constructive admin who has made some bad decisions in the past few months. He should not let anything get to him, though.

I personally say that we should all just leave this behind us. All parties broke the rules here.

I should also remind everyone not to judge editors by their activity over at ED. We are not to discriminate against editors based on where they spend their free time, and we must always assume good faith unless there is vandalism. Several ED editors have made great contributions here, and those should not be pushed aside by the fact that they edit in a place that is very unpopular and controversial around here. Not every ED editor is responsible for the slander they make against us. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I have no right to remove a link to their mainpage while it has an attack aricle on a Wikipedian posted there? Let me clarify what I think about the ED website, outside of their articles that attack wikipedians. They routinely support anti-semetic, homophobic and extemely rascist remarks all over their website. Many of the editors there actively engage in this and I think the wesbite is complete garbage. Lastly, so I can try and assume good faith from you...please remove the incorrect statement about me editing at unencyclopedia...I have not once edited that website. Making gross accusations against me here without proof is something I am not going to put up with.--MONGO 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There was, however, an editor named MONGO trolling at Uncyc. Maybe he was just an ED troll? Sir Crazyswordsman 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree about ED being garbage. They are what one would call a "shock humor" site, where the editors write insults at people and get kicks out of our reactions. And I should tell you that shock humor isn't funny (which is why I go to Uncyclopedia, which is NOT shock humor). And frankly, like I said, this is something that pretty much evolved into an all out war. I don't support any sanctions agains you, but I must ask you to keep your head held high and to keep your cool when it comes to these things. It's best to ignore it so stuff like this doesn't happen. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just logged into Unencyclopedia for the very first time...looks like Wikipedia. I looked up User:MONGO there and sure enough, someone seems to have used my username here as their username there. You can ask them to do a checkuser on me there and I will provide my IP here if that will satisfy you. For the record, there wasn't any way for me to edit this encyclopedia and avoid them...it would have been virtually impossible.--MONGO 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement By TawneeLynne

I am a victim of this site and wish to join in this. They have taken my personal pictures and art and posted it without my permission. I have offered up a DMCA and then they posted my personal name and address on the site off the dmca. Furthermore, they countered the dmca with some address in the Middle East, knowing I am disabled and unable to afford the fees to file against them. Furthermore they have led others to stalk me and say they are going to rape me. http://tawneelynne.livejournal.com/399332.html

http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Tawneelynne --Tawneelynne 02:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)TawneeLynne

The best wikipedia can do is put the domain on the spam blacklist like wikia has done. Anomo 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia damatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia damatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking ban question

Does that include links even with the nowiki tags around it like http://www.[thesitethatcannotbenamed].com? Does it include just mentioning the domain name like "[thesitethatcannotbenamed].com"? Does it include similar domains with the same name but a different extention like [thesitethatcannotbenamed].info or [thesitethatcannotbenamed].cx (rather than .com)? Anomo 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It reads: "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." It is not the site that cannot be mentioned. Fred Bauder 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So the URLs can be mentioned as long as there is no link? Anomo 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A disabled link is more or less still a link. Fred Bauder 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to say URLs can be removed on sight, you should say so, without equivocal language like "more or less". I would disagree that a plain URL is a link, but if you want to conflate the two, say so with certainty. Pussyfooting won't help anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that ED is a distraction. I don't want to waste time on it. If they wish more traffic they can advertise in the New York Times or on CNN. Fred Bauder 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep...it's a giant yawn and there is no reason to allow them to use Wiki as their main advertisment base.--MONGO 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I'm not trying to waste your time. I just went through my talk page and disabled a bunch of links by putting <nowiki> tags around them. I also have a disabled ED URL on my userpage, in the section about other wikis I edit, and sometimes refer people to when they want to contribute material that isn't for this wiki. I intentionally avoided live links because I'm not trying to fall afoul of this ArbCom decision. If plain URLs are a problem, I'd just as soon remove them myself. My common sense tells me they shouldn't be a problem in the contexts I'm thinking of, but my common sense doesn't always dovetail with WP policy, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The link still exists on your userpage. There are at least a dozen articles on Wikipedians alone which makes efforts to reveil personal information for the sake of harassment, potentially in real life, by providing places of work, real names and other things. I can't possibly imagine how advertising that website on your Wiki userpage is beneficial to our efforts here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's no "link" on my userpage, according to the defintion of that word. There's a URL, which isn't necessarily a link, hence the request for clarification. Still I know what you mean: there's still directions to the site. As for why it's there, I think it makes sense in context. There are different wikis out there for different things. There's some kinds of information I look up at WP, and some kinds I look up at aboutus.org, some I look up at ED. I don't like the way ED handles their articles about WP admins, but that's not the whole site. I don't like the way WP handles some things, but I don't write off the whole wiki on account of that. I'm actually optimistic that the situation can be improved, in the sense of personal information being removed. The blurb on my userpage is a step towards accomplishing that goal. It also provides information about who I am, as a Wikipedian - I see Wikipedia as being one member of the family of Wikis. There are some wikis that are very good to refer people to when they wish to contribute material that we don't want. ED is one of those.

MONGO, I'm not happy about them harassing you, and I absolutely maintain your right to defend yourself against harassment. Remember when I helped explain to Karwynn about why a block for IP fishing was entirely appropriate? I'm not ignorant enough about ED, however, to believe the rhetoric about it being an attack site, or "garbage". I also know that their practice is to remove personal information, when asked politely and reasonably. I don't know if that would work for you, but it has for others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They are willing to remove slander when someone asks them politely and reasonably? Why would one have to even ask? Why woudl I embrace a website that endorses and even encourages harassment, racism, bigotry and defamation and then calls it "satire"...I mean, I can take a joke...and is partly why I chose my username, but when they try to bring their nonsense here on wiki, then we have a problem. Again, I can't imagine what purpose is served by linking to or, as you have it, advertising the URL of that website. It's not like it's some source of great revelation that will make this encyclopedia better.--MONGO 21:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I understand why you're upset; you have every right to feel that way. I don't ask you to embrace the website. If you find their humor ineffective or offensive, so be it. I find lots of humor ineffective, and some kinds outright offensive, and I try to avoid such humor. I do consider two issues very distinct: what happens at ED, and what happens at Wikipedia. I absolutely agree with you that it's inappropriate to "bring their nonsense" here. At Wikipedia, I wear my Wikipedia hat, and I'm against drama here. That doesn't affect the fact that I understand and appreciate the kind of satire going on at ED, and I don't for a minute imagine them to be racist, homophobic, etc. It helps knowing how many of its contributors are blacks, jews, gays, women, etc. What you see as "encouragement" of bigotry is actually a grotesque caricature of bigotry - one which exposes it as truly absurd and despicable. And yes, it's true that if you approach them with recognition that they're humans with diginity, then they're likely to dignify reasonable requests from you. You might be a special case; I don't know.

As for the value of what's on my userpage, I think it's a good idea to link to wikis whose purposes are in some way adjacent to ours. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with an idea in their mind that corresponds more closely to some other wiki. We should send them there, and we ourselves might as well know how to find information on some topics that fly beneath Wikipedia's radar. Besides the satire, ED provides valuable documentation of internet culture reported from the perspective of the bottom-feeders. Try figuring out what's up with "desu", as an internet term, by reading the article here. You can't, and that's a good thing, because it's not covered in Reliable Sources(tm). So you have to look elsewhere. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what they write about me at that website...I care about how they take personal information about folks who post things here innocently and misuse that for the purposes of harassment on wiki and there. I always defend Wikipedians from on site and as much as possible, off site harassment and I can find no reason that anyone should advertise that website anywhere on this one. I completely disagree with Fred below where he states that "your user page is tasteful and appropriate"...I don't think it is by any means. Look at my userpage...am I advertising? Am I promoting another wesbite, or endorsing another website..no. My userpage lists the areas I am most actively involved, some articles I started and some pictures. You'll find not one userbox, not one link to a website that endorses harassment. De-linking to ED is just a way to tip-toe around the issue as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I respect your right to disagree with my choices, and my taste. I'm going to continue to play the part of ambassador between the two wikis, because I think it's the right thing to do. If I have two groups of friends who don't get along, I'll persist in reminding each group that the others are people too. I don't think ED should harass Wikipedia admins, and I don't think Wikipedia should claim that ED is a racist attack site. There's room for both wikis on the internet, and I will not support holding grudges. I'm not tip-toeing around anything; I'm saying head-on that these two communities should both accept each other as different projects with different goals that can co-exist peacefully. I'm sure as hell not going to hide the fact that I'm an ED contributor and fan, because I refuse to act like it's anything to be ashamed of and hide, as some people who edit both sites currently do. Wikipedia is going to continue to look down its nose at ED and refuse to cover internet drama and cruft, as is consistent with its purview, and ED is going to continue to mock Wikipedia and note when people here generate drama, as is consistent with its purview. None of that has to mean that people should be afraid to admit on one wiki that they edit the other as well. I don't expect you to see where I'm coming from, so I guess I'll hope you can agree to disagree with me. I don't support ED's harassment of you, whether or not you believe me, or accept my good faith. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I am very proud to say that I don't and won't edit that other website as I see it as a complete waste of my precious minutes on this earth. If you wish to use your userspace to advertise that website then I can't imagine what more we have to discuss. Any defense of that website is a weak argument. The website attacks people...are you blind to this fact? I tolerate zero harassment here and can't possibly imagine why anyone would link to a website that personally attacks anyone.--MONGO 08:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you included a direct question, I'll answer it. No, I'm not blind to the fact that they attack some individuals, nor do I agree with it, as I've said already. I don't take the fact that they do something I disagree with as an excuse to write off the whole site, just like I don't take the fact that Wikipedia does things I disagree with as an excuse to write off this site. Many disagree with me, in both cases. Do you have any friends who do anything you consider wrong? Would it be reasonable for me to say that I can't imagine why you'd be friends with them? I don't think so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that my friends do anything wrong...that I know of. I suppose if you know there are attack articles on that website and you do nothing about it, then I can't see what else we have to discuss. Bauder stated above that a disabled link is more or less still a link, but below claims your userpage is tasteful and appropriate...so I guess I'm the one confused. I read the arbcom remedy as links may be removed and blocks may be applied for violations of the remedies. Since the website links have been removed virtually everywhere I know of, I don't see what sense it makes to have the URL mentioned on your userpage, unless you're trying to tip-toe around the issue...that is certainly what it appears to me.--MONGO 09:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you so sure I'm doing "nothing about it"? The things I don't like about Wikipedia, I work to change - why should ED be different? I'm not going to write ED off, or hide my association with it, simply because they do some things I don't like. I already replied above that I'm not "tip-toeing", or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm saying quite directly and with confidence that I think ED is a valid website, and that there are valid reasons to mention it on my userpage. I'm not "tip-toeing", or I wouldn't have pointed out my userpage to Fred and asked him if I should take the URL down. Since I'm working to improve relations between these two wikis, you can bet that I'm not "doing nothing about it". Why not give me a little bit of benefit of the doubt? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sums up where I stand.--MONGO 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Super. I have no problem with my activities being closely monitored. I, as the arbitrators cautioned, always wear my Wikipedian hat here. I'm sure I'll see you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what you have on your user page is tasteful and appropriate. Fred Bauder 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. I apologize for any inconvenience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to what I started the topic as, most people will never read this arbcom case and so arbcom needs to add this to precedents list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions since it is a precent and people won't find out otherwise. Sorry if I did not see if it's there already. The list is very long. Anomo 22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Until arbcom makes it clear that linking to ED is not permitted, even if the link is not clickable, then there isn't any precident here. Mostly, what we have are common sense things that pertain to harassment and related issues that are already covered by existing policies.--MONGO 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing. When it says: "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," does it mean no live links are allowed, or no links at all? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no live links. And I think no dead links to specific attacks. I think going further may be counterproductive. Fred Bauder 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,interestingly, just a couple days ago...on their mainpage, which is the link GTBaccus has nonclickable from his userpage...was an image that was personally attacking me...part of their "picture in the now"...--MONGO 03:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin meant Daniel Brandt's page Wikipedia Watch, which has a list of lots of personal info on all the admins and some non-admins (like Malber). MONGO is not included there. I looked at ED and it was just a photoshop of MONGO's head onto somebody on the empire state building when an airplane flew by. I also see that they tend not to have all that personal information stuff that Wikipedia Watch has -- they seem more interested in fiction like photoshops than real info. As for Wikipedia Watch, all of Brandts sites once were blacklisted because they redirected there. Now I think Wikipedia Watch is off the blacklist. Anomo 08:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Slim was not specific in which site she was talking about and indeed, ED certainly does have attack sites about Wikipedians and non wikipedians in which not only is personal information posted, but efforts to help them locate further information of a personal nature is encouraged. I don't see the same level of "funny" lies on WR as I do on ED...ie: libel in which persons are referred to as pedophiles. That image of "me" was not of a plane flying by, but flying into the WTC, all doctored, but the effect is still the same, as an attack...but so long as they don't attack you, right. How amazing it is that the ED supportors were so up in arms about not having girlviny's ID "real name" posted in the ED article here some time back, yet this apparent founder of that website does nothing to keep personal information out of that website. [19]--MONGO 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WR stands for Wikipedia Review, a messageboard for complaining about Wikipedia. Wikipedia Watch, a different site, is the website run by Daniel Brandt with the personal info. Also, about the girlvyni information, ED now claims that an obviously ficticious person called "Joseph Evers" owns the site -- my guess is because of the amount of lawsuits the site has. Anomo 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What lawsuits? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My investigations suggest that the "amount of lawsuits the site has" is zero. But hey, if we're just making stuff up, I heard ED did WTC... -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I just checked and on the 18th Raul re-added them to the blacklist (after they were taken off a month ago or so) with nothing in the talk page of the spam blacklist. His edit summary only said "restoring Brandt's sites" and then he claimed they were redirecting, but I checked them all in preview mode and they were not. I also checked and noticed that encyclopediadramatica\.com is now on there added on the 25th and there was talk page discussion, but the .net and .org that redirect to the .com site are not listed. Anomo 08:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED

Moved from RFAr main page:

Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.--Konst.able^Talk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The remedy does not mandate a campaign of link removal, although if someone wishes to undertake it, that is fine. It is simply that links to the site are inappropriate and may be removed, or disabled, when encountered. Should a naive user make links, they should be warned and pointed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. There are no exceptions, but the remedy is mostly intended to be applied to links to hostile ED entries. Fred Bauder 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification.--Konst.able^Talk 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy and this page

If this page is to be used in policy proposals or in policy itself eg Wikipedia:Attack sites could not a copy of this page giving the details of the arbcom decisions and removing the mention of any individual editors be created so thatbn this page doesnt need to be mentioned in policy or proposed policy pages. Some editors have been permanently banned as a result of the decisions here but surely that is not information that should be linked to in a policy or proposed policy page as it is unfair on the banned editors, SqueakBox 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on linking to attack sites

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

note: A related Request for arbitration has been filed. - Denny ^(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Suspect for a clear definition. Of course if I disagree with you over Brandt or WR I will comment. Are you trying to suppress my comments? Make it unpleasant for me to comment? And if so why? It appear you refuse my offer of mediation while claiming I cant comment on your statements. Why? Please read our policies where you will find I am within my rights to comment on your statements on these important issues. I am aware you are a newbie so let me stress this is the wikipedia way, ie we comment on each others comments, engage in debate and do so in a civil way, SqueakBox 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by arbitrators

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

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

Obviously any ambiguity is seen as an invitation to excuse personal attacks. Linking to any site which attacks any Wikipedia user in an aggressive way is inappropriate. Which is not to say that WP:BADSITES is not a BADIDEA, nor that criticism is not welcomed. Fred Bauder 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not see incivility there and I do not see how to characterize malicious privacy breaches as something other than intentionally causing direct personal harm. 64.160.39.153 04:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I received a blocking warning for a comment on Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, in which I said that I would prefer still being able to link to a certain subpage of WR. I'm not linking to WR here, but to a Google search [20]. I'd really like to know if I could be blocked for linking to that exact subpage within the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, where I tried to use the link to illustrate that not all pages of WR contain attack against specific Wikipedia users. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Does this mean I can restore the citation I made in the course of the discussion? Mangoe 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've been trying to work up a cautionary essay (tentatively to be titled Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world) but just haven't been able to devote the time necessary to do so. Mangoe 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See also, e.g., Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Usernames#Real names versus pseudonyms. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the latter section heading has disappeared lately. It seems to me that we might want to make it more clear that Wikipedia cannot protect editors from extra-Wikipedian consequences of their actions, and cannot protect their identities from being revealed on other sites. Mangoe 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. You are probably right about it only being editable by administrators; however, I suppose I could rough up something in a sandbox and then get some community response, and see where it goes. Risker 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, speaking as an arbitrator who was involved in the MONGO case, the unanimous Arbitration Committee ruling there was quite clear:A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. Since Wikipedia Review spends a fair bit of time in various attempts to do exactly this, it is clearly an attack site as defined by the Arbitration Committee ruling. Fred voted for this statement, as, for that matter, did I. It is quite appropriate to "generalize" this principle to the case of Wikipedia Review, since these broad principles are stated for exactly this purpose, and since the application is quite obvious and appropriate in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, how should that principle be applied to Free Republic, a site containing a number of threads (to which I will not link here, for what I hope should be obvious reasons) which would qualify it as an attack site under that definition? JavaTenor 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Conceptually, the main issue is whether a website acts as a medium for contributors to collude in efforts to gather information which may or may not be trying to "out" the real world identities of our contributors. If Free Republic is doing this, then that is an issue. There may be a need in the policy proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites to allow pertinent links to even attack websites if that information is manadatory for the arbcom to make a transparent decision. I feel that once a decision is finalized, then the links can either be erased via oversight or adjusted (as was done on the MONGO case) so that the links go nowhere. I am favor of zero links, but again, this may not be completely practical. The proposed policy is an effort to make sure that these kinds of links aren't tolerated and repeat offenses can result in administrative action.--MONGO 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would people not be able to submit such links to the arbitration committee by private email in cases where stuff posted on these websites forms part of the evidence in an arbcom case? ElinorD (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely...and I think SlimVirgin has also stated this point. If there is something that is linked that threatens the right to privacy that all editors here have, then that would be best sent to any member of arbcom via email. I was just trying to leave a little wiggle-room for the sake of not being too inflexible.--MONGO 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of occasions an attack site would need to be linked to legitimately are minimal, and they can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Editors acting in good faith will find ways to convey the information without harming others e.g. by sending it by e-mail if it's an ArbCom matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you recognise that there are minimal genuine cases. Not all of us are comfortable with off-wikipedia ways of doing things. What with DB legal threats and all some of us dont want to be seen as other than transparent, and I hope you appreciate that de veras Slim, SqueakBox!

the attempt vs. the act of publishing private information

Is there a technical difference in the attempt vs. the act of publishing private information about Wikipedians? —AldeBaer 14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If I publish a name for you that you have not published on Wikipedia yourself (unless you're made made clear elsewhere that you are Wikipedia's AldeBaer and also that named person), it's a violation of policy even if I've come up with the wrong name. The point is whether I was trying to out you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. —AldeBaer 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If I publish (we're talking about publishing websites, right? If any reliable source ever publishes your name, your privacy is essentially done with, isn't it?) on a website of mine that the person behind the account SlimVirgin is probably Genghis Khan (or let's say Daniel Brandt, for some more flavour), it'd be such a pathetic attempt that I'd have a hard time accepting it as a real attack. The question remains where exactly to draw the line. —AldeBaer 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the difficulty and I'm curious to know why people need to pin this down so exactly. The solution is to use common sense and not attack fellow editors, then there'll be no need to draw the line. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this pinned down exactly, so I know what I can and what I can't link to. I would never intentionally link to attack content, let alone in order to attack another user. But you yourself provided a perfect reason for an exact rule, when you warned me about linking to WR again when I had linked to a subpage without any attacks. According to Fred Bauder, there should be no problem with that. According to you, there is. Hence the need for an exact rule. —AldeBaer 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We still have a clarification problem

Edits to Wikipedia talk:Attack sites are still being reverted for containing references to wikipediareview.com (diff). Can we get a definite ruling as to whether these links and these reversions are licit? Mangoe 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was clarified above by an arbitrator who worked on the 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." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not an acceptable authority. Mangoe 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop these personal attacks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, or for that matter even uncivil. It is merely blunt. Mangoe 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a bit uncivil, but it's understandable. It is certainly not a personal attack. You actually do not have authority to decide the matter, nor does a former ArbCom member. The ArbCom has already given a comment above. If you're looking for a real personal attack, see Mantanmoreland's response to Cla68 below. —AldeBaer 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. Reminding this user of an administrator's warning that he stop pushing a banned user's agenda is not a personal attack. --Mantanmoreland 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL... However, what current arbitrator Fred Bauder said about case by case evaluation regarding WR made a lot more sense to me than a carte blanche against all such sites. Then again, I've not been tageted by any attack sites, which may make a difference in my reasoning. —AldeBaer 00:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We all agree that links to attack sites are in general not a good idea. Such links may sometimes be warrented, thus they must be dealt with on a case by case basis. So a blind thought-less ban on sites that might sometimes have content worth linking to is not appropriate for a site that intends to contain "all knowledge". Mindless rules are not appropriate for a thoughtful endevor. WAS 4.250 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know of an example of an article that is a good illustration of what Fred Bauder is talking about when he says that these critical sites sometimes point out valid concerns about issues with Wikipedia. However, because of threats to block me that quote a "policy" that may or not be enforceable keep me from naming the article or its host site here. Cla68 02:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure you would be eager to quote from the attack site to which you refer, which is run by a banned user who has harassed Wikipedia administrators and editors. Your advocacy of that user's agenda was the reason your RfA failed. You were asked to drop it [21], but evidently you do not intend to do so.--Mantanmoreland 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That, in my humble opinion, is a personal attack. At the very least, you are assuming bad faith and being uncivil. —AldeBaer 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive. Reminding this user of an administrator's warning that he stop pushing a banned user's agenda is not a personal attack. --Mantanmoreland 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Attack sites policy proposal is not ambiguous and arbcom does not establish policy. Any links of a harassing nature can be emailed to arbitrators or others who need to know certain issues to render their "verdict". There is no need to post links on wiki that are from sites that collate information in a forum or similar in an attempt to disclose or identify the real life identities of wikipedia contributors...that is my definition of an attack site. It is mainly an invasion of privacy issue.--MONGO 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to" ? Do we simply ignore that now? —AldeBaer 09:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[22] WAS 4.250 11:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly uncivil simply to state my determination that MONGO, SlimVirgin, and Crum375 are not adequate authorities for interpreting arbcom. As for Jayjg, he has misstated that his own (contrary) statement was that of Fred Bauder. The only reason we need an arbcom clarification in the first place is that opponents of the WP:BADSITES proposal do not agree that the first three named are giving an interpretation that is consistent with the remedies of the cited case. Since none of those three was on arbcom at the time, and since one of them was indeed a subject of the case in question, I can't see how their statements provide any such clarification. And while Jayjg was sufficiently involved, he seems to be taking the tack that his statement of what arbcom said is the only anyone needs, which is a problem considering that other members have made statements that seem to contradict his position. So at this point we seem to have gotten nowhere. We've gotten some clarifying statements from arbcom members, and we have some argument against them by non-members, and the statements by members not only do not all agree, but contain disputing claims about who even made those statements. This is hardly clarifying.

We need arbcom-- not SlimVirgin, not MONGO, and not one (former) member presuming to override the others-- to clarify this. Mangoe 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've struck one sentence that resulted from an exchange I misunderstood. My apologies. Mangoe 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need clarification when what they themselves ruled on is unambiguous? Which part of the following needs to be clarified or interpreted? "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." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, because your word that it is clear isn't good enough? We are getting a barrage of different statements taken from the same case that do not add up to a consistent picture. The simple fact that people are (if you believe in good faith) coming up with a variety of contrary interpretations indicates, objectively and without any possibility of refutation, that there is a lack of clarity. And if one ignores all the editorial commentary by non-members, what we have is two statements from actual members who dispute your interpretation, and one which supports it, so we still don't have clarity.

Frankly, it is highly improper to have all this side commentary here as to what the armcom findings and remedies mean. Fred Bauder, who as an arbcom member on that particular case is an undeiable authority, makes a statement, and the first response is from you, SlimVirgin, arguing with him. Do you honestly believe that, in a contest between you and him over interpreting arbcom, I should be expected to heed you, a non-member and conspicuously involved party, over Bauder, who as far as I can tell has no presence on the Unspeakable Site? It defies all common sense! Mangoe 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has been attacked and continues to be attacked to a breath-taking degree on Wikipedia Review. I leave conclusions to be reached about this to the reader. Hint: it cuts both ways. WAS 4.250 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is an editor in good standing who has made great contributions to Wikipedia's articles and policies. An attack on her is an attack on Wikipedia as a whole, although of course other editors are routinely attacked also. It is incumbent on all of us to stop promoting these attacks and harassments by linking to them or otherwise facilitating their access from within Wikiepdia. We expect our editors to work for free here; we should at least have the decency to provide them with a minimally safe and comfortable work environment. Crum375 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

An attack on her is an attack on her. It's not literally an attack on Wikipedia as a whole. Protection of our users is necessary, but so is avoiding all unnecessary censorship. A carte blanche against every site critical of Wikipedia would be a problem for an encyclopedia which explicitly states that it is not censored. Even worse is users who disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Crum, you deleted an entire comment I had posted in good faith to Wikipedia talk:Attack sites as if it had been posted by a troll. Even though the subpage I had linked did not contain any attacks, I was warned never to link to that site again by SlimVirgin. Now a former arbitrator speaks up in favour of a total ban of WR, in direct opposition to the offical ArbCom comment above. There is a clear and present need for offical responses to be taken seriously. You cannot just dismiss an ArbCom statement because you don't like it. That's why some people get nervous: It seems some other people want to interpret ArbCom ruling only according to their (understandable) position. But the ArbCom has the last word (in case Jimbo doesn't intervene) and they have commented already. Unless there is a more recent statement, I strongly suggest suspending your judgement for only a moment and actually ponder over that statement. —AldeBaer 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The last formal and official statement by ArbCom on this specific issue, voted on as a general 'Principle' and passed unanimously, is this:

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.

To me that is clear and unambiguous. And an attack on any Wikipedia editor in good standing, especially one with the remarkable history of contributions like User:SlimVirgin, is an attack on anyone who has the good of this project at heart. Crum375 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't recognize it as an attack on me. So you're calling me an enemy of Wikipedia? —AldeBaer 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said, and I hope you are not. Crum375 19:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has the last word. GFDL makes sure all this is a contribution to all mankind; who will modify and add content. The process itself is the victory for freedom and community and all of us. WAS 4.250 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom determined that the ED website was not to be linked to. Bauder didn't support a blanket ban for any other mentioned website. SlimVirgin myself and others have the conviction that WR is really no different than ED...maybe even worse since ED at least claims to be a parody website. The fact that WR contributors make overt efforts to try and identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors, and the monitors of WR and ED do little to remove it, is collusion. If we start cherry picking which links from these websites is "good" and which are "bad", then we'll end up in nonstop arguments.--MONGO 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder specifically did not support a blanket ban on Wikipedia Review, maybe you should be talking to him. —AldeBaer 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And, MONGO, the moment we begin to censor material that doesn't need to be censored, we will not have any serious arguments any more. I favour debate. I favour a multifaceted Wikipedia. —AldeBaer 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of "Patrick Henry" rhetoric is a little ridiculous, in my humble opinion. We "censor" material on Wikipedia every day. It is called "editing." Entire areas of the Internet are off limits and are not linked or used as sources because they are not permitted by our policies. That includes blogs and websites much less objectionable than the crappy ones that you are fighting so hard to include.--Mantanmoreland 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ridiculous rhetoric." — *swallowing* — I am allowed to link to any usual website from my user talk page. Wikiwide censorship means I am not even allowed to link to an attack-free subpage within the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Attack sites. There's a difference, GaryMantanmoreland. —AldeBaer 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The "GaryMantanmoreland" jibe puts you squarely in the WordBomb meatpuppet mode, with his "Gary Weiss" obsession which is the subject of his attack website that he runs on behalf of his CEO-employer. It does not surprise me, since it is obvious to me that a good number of the editors so exercised by this subject are fans/users of the attack sites they are defending, including, as indicated by this, yourself. Thank you for revealing the agenda at work here.--Mantanmoreland 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be true if we were talking about article space, but we aren't. Right now, to be precise, we are talking about talk space, where the general principle is that material of others isn't edited except either in the most trivial matter (e.g. typos) or for very serious breaches where the visibility of the deleted material is intolerable. The immediate right-here-and-now issue is whether arbcom has established a general principle of intolerability already which applies to the Unspeakable Site. Nothing that has written here since my "we still need a clarification" response has done a thing to resolve that point. Mangoe 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is such a strange discussion. The ArbCom ruling is clear. The Arbitration Committee voted on it and passed it. It says: "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." I have to ask again: which part of it is unclear?

Mangoe and AldeBaer, perhaps the difference between you and me is this: if this website attacked you, but not me, I'd be arguing in exactly the same way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This part is unclear. You warned me not to link to WR again, yet Fred Bauder said there's no problem with it. Confusing.

Maybe you're right, SlimVirgin. Even if it attacked me, I would still be against unnecessary censorship, because I welcome critical opinions. —AldeBaer 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Critical review is one thing...efforts to "out" the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors is another..the hope is that at some point, you'll recognize what this difference is. I highly doubt you would welcome a link about you which purports to identify your real name/address/phone number and other personal information. That is, unless you want some miscreant to use those things to harass you in real life.--MONGO 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to harass me in real life? —AldeBaer 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You would be offering a protection to which I do not appeal. I've been subject to personal attacks on-line many times, most commonly in cases where my identity was entirely clear. My name is in the phone book, and presumably anyone who wanted to threaten me for real could have done so. And if they had, I would have talked to the police about it; but they never did.

My identity is not all that well-hidden; someone could name me and associate me with a long history of web-presence (and pre-web, for that matter). I accept that by posting in a public place like Wikipedia I am running the risk of public consequences for what I do, including having my actions associated with a real person. If someone there wrote an attack on me, I would grit my teeth and take it, as (I believe) any adult ought to. People saying bad things about you is one of the things that happens when you speak in public, and in the USA, at least, their legal right to do so, even to the point of invective, is legally protected. And at any rate, the protection I need is protection from people going back and tampering with my words, and that's exactly the protection it is proposed not to provide.

It's obvious that there is a general difference of opinion about privacy here that needs to be addressed comprehensively. But that's not the issue in this subdiscussion. What is germane is that we have contradictory clarifications from arbcom, and I'm really not at all interesting your resolution of that. I'm only interested in their resolution. Mangoe 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously any ambiguity is inappropriate. Due to extensive attacks on SlimVirgin, Wikipedia Review should be considered an attack site. Fred Bauder 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally. Thanks for clarifying this. —AldeBaer 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question. The New Yorker outed Ryan Jordan, a wikipedia admin of prior good standing. Does that make the New Yorker an attack site? If Ms. Schiff decided to start editing on Wikipedia, would she be banned? Thanks for you consideration to these questions. Piperdown 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Essjay admitted to being Ryan Jordan, according to the New Yorker editor's note. --Mantanmoreland 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He also self-identified on Wikia after he had gotten a job there... this is what lead to the correction in The New Yorker and the subsequent widespread outrage. Brandt, through WR, signaled what he was doing to push the correction to Schiff's article, but if it wasn't him someone else familiar with Essjay's bio and the Schiff article would have done so eventually, and the controversy would have broke without any prior warning to the community here.--Academy Leader 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So Ms. Schiff can safely edit Wikipedia? How nice.--Mantanmoreland 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Banning the New York Times here is completely unrealistic and would of itself be notable enough to garner considerable unwelcome media attention. Its in a different league from ED, WR, WW etc, SqueakBox 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Just one more question on this: Is the New York Post an "attack site"? Thanks for your help in how this new guideline would serve any purpose that WP:RS doesn't already. Piperdown 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't read the New York Post. Is the New York Post filled with attacks on Wikipedians and lengthy efforts aimed at "outing" Wikipedians? Is Page Six filled with the latest gossip from the Arbitration Committee? If so, then the New York Post is an attack site.--Mantanmoreland 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Post? Times? Grr! My comment applies to all mainstream newspapers (I know the British ones but not the American!) none of which fit Mantanmoreland's definitions, of course, SqueakBox 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame Piperdown for raising this issue, as it commenced when someone asked to "clarify" a perfectly straightforward Arb committee decision. As we sow, so shall we reap.--Mantanmoreland 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the NY Post article. It does discuss the "unmentionable site" (or one of them, anyway), but doesn't talk about Wikipedia or any editors on Wikipedia. In fact, the article appears to disparage the "unmentionable site." Is it okay, then, to link to this NY Post article since it isn't "attacking" Wikipedia or any project editors? Cla68 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What New York Post article? Go ahead, link to it. Be bold. P.S., that quote was from Galatians, somewhere.--Mantanmoreland 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can link to that or any New York Post article, SqueakBox 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this situation I can't figure out how linking to that article relates to this discussion. It does discuss the "off-limits" site and "outs" it, but what does that have to do with our dicussion here on linking directly to sites that some label as "attack" sites? In spite of this, if anyone wants to read the article, I can post the link here. Cla68 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any specific articles in papers such as the NY Post or Times. I'm referring to what I am guessing what would be WP:RS such as the above 2, if they "attacked" wikipedia users. Do just those reporters/authors get banned? Do only those articles get banned? Since a NY Times won't be put on an attack list, how would such a situation be handled? And I must say, loaded answers to my unloaded questions reveal more about some of you than I really care to know. My questions are face value and not loaded.Piperdown 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It is totally irrelevant, and I am starting to wonder why it was raised in the first place.--Mantanmoreland 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just like to be clarified if a congressman makes a diatribe against a specific Wikipedian on the floor of House of Representatives and publish that speech on his website. Should be ban the linking to that congressman's official website? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification (June-September 2007)

Per this ruling, is this good-faith edit grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for this? Kamryn Matika 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. Kamryn Matika 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy. Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances, after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself here... you say it's not policy, but then you say it's enforceable anyway. It doesn't help things to suppress the link here that shows the specific instance being discussed, even though the link is to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to the so-called attack site. You also don't even address the point that the particular link in question was being used to source an article, and was relevant in that context, so the supposed attack-link ban (which you yourself agree is not actual policy) is not directly relevant... in fact, this instance is one of those "attempts to generalize the remedy" that you're supposedly against. If it's "not policy", then how is the fact that somebody was "warned" about it relevant? I can warn you that using the letter "e" in your postings makes you subject to getting blocked for it... does that mean that if you persist in using that letter you can properly be blocked? A "warning" not backed by valid policy should have no effect. By the way, there has never been a hearing considering the particular site in question for the particular link discussed here, although it's hard for anybody to check when even the link to the diff is being suppressed. *Dan T.* 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the banned site there is an enforceable remedy. Attempts to make that remedy into a policy are misguided as there needs to be a determination that a site is systematically engaged in destructive behavior before it is banned. Wikipedia has a number of legitimate critics. It would be grossly inappropriate to ban every critical website. Fred Bauder 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but websites that routinely post personally reveiling information about our editors should never be linked to nor advertised.--MONGO 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this just about does it for me. Kamryn Matika 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I misread the link you made. It is to Wikipedia Review, not to the banned drama site. I doubt a block was justified. Fred Bauder 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: We did not write a proposal about, or vote on, linking to ED. Rather, we voted on a general principle. The MONGO case was quite clear when we voted on it, and the vote was unanimous:

"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."[23]

Given the contents of WR, which has had dozens of threads and hundreds of posts devoted to attempts to "publish private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants", it is clear that the site meets the definition of "an attack site" as outlined here, that its pages "pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances", and that the block (after warning), was appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction. However, it is still a matter of degree. I post on Wikipedia Review. I would not even consider creating an ED account. Fred Bauder 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't condemn anyone for posting there, so long they are in fact "reviewing Wikipedia" and not trying to "out" anyone. But I have seen plenty of efforts by many contributors to that site who have tried to overtly ID the real life ID's of some of our contributors. That little to nothing is done to eliminate these postings demonstrates that they condone stalking and I find that to be unacceptable and thus I cannot see any reason why linking to any site that does this should be tolerated.--MONGO 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks should never be used as a penalty, but rather as a means to protect the encyclopaedia from harm. Linking to Wikipedia Review in an article, with an informative purpose, is not "damaging the encyclopaedia", and a block for this makes no sense. SalaSkan 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sept 2007

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on ED (August 2007)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not an ED troll, but an interesting question was raised at a recent DRV (see bottom) for it. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, it was ruled that ED links and material is banned from Wikipedia. However, it was questioned in the DRV that even if reliable sources that established notability were found, would it come in conflict with the ArbCom ruling in that case? Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The ED article itself has clearly posed internal problems for us. I think the turning point for me would be this: Are there sufficient reliable sources about ED which demonstrate that ED so clearly inside our inclusion guidelines that our project would be incomplete without it? If that were the case, I myself would support an amendment to the MONGO decision to permit an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Well, I can't see much more reason to edit this website if the arbitrators are going to support the recreation of an article about that website which has attacked a number of our contributors in ways that simply cannot be put into words. Oddly enough, the article on me there is hardly one of the worst.--MONGO 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax. We have lots of articles about things, people, and organizations we don't like, and your concern is hypothetical since there aren't reliable sources covering ED. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In my own opinion, the ArbCom way overstepped its proper bounds in imposing a flat and absolute link ban, and this has had ongoing pernicious consequences; one of them has been to turn me from a strong supporter of Wikipedia to somebody who's largely disillusioned and disgruntled, because of my scuffles over this silly policy. Also, labeling people "trolls" for disagreeing with a clique here is hardly productive. *Dan T.* 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't see us linking pages to uncyclopedia all the time. Having links to ED in individual pages outside of the ED article (if it is re-created mind you) is pointless. Part of the reason for the ban is the numerous amounts of attack pages on the site, how would you feel if someone posted the link to a page blatantly attacking you on your userspace (talk included). Regarding the "trolls", in a nutshell, what they are doing is trolling, just not on-wiki. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd find it funny, actually... a while back when I was on both Daniel Brandt's Hivemind and Jeff Merkey's Merkeylaw, with some silly attacks on me in both places, I actually linked to them on my own userpage to laugh at them, something that wouldn't be permitted these days under the silly "no links to attack sites" policy. *Dan T.* 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To each their own then. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No attack sites was rejected. Or at least the form I have seen was - people seem to be thinking it IS actually policy though! Viridae^Talk 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article on Daniel Brandt can be a redirect, then surely anything ED-related can be a redirect also. What he's done carries far more clout and legitimacy than what they've done. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification (October 2007)

I have noticed several editors have commented that the Attack Sites arbcom case which just closed, essentially supercedes the MONGO case. One editor has gone as far as to state that the Attack Sites case findings and remedies now permit linking to the encyclopedia dramatica website. Miltopia, has stated "please update your jargon/update catch-phrases from the asinine MONGO decision in your brains accordingly.". Neil has stated that "your old ArbCom ruling, which has since been outmoded.". Dtobias has even gone so far as to state that the MONGO case is obsolete and outdated[24] and that ED is not "totally off-limits under all circumstances."...so the questions are...is the MONGO case superceded by the Attack Sites case, or do they compliment each other...or are they completely seperate?--MONGO 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 4 days, MONGO has made 11 reverts to restore the BADSITES language and his arbitration case into WP:NPA. 4*3=12, so this is only 1 revert under a 3RR violation. This behavior has been going on for 4 days. MONGO is seeking clarification from ArbCom in order to sanction his edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat

Sorry you think that is the case, as it is not...didn't you just get through telling me to AGF...now I expect you do the same for me...who knows, maybe the MONGO case is null and void. That is why I asked arbcom for clarification.--MONGO 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo the need for clarification, in no small part due to an administrator's stated intent to continue enforcing a rejected policy proposal [25]. Milto LOL pia 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of MONGO's stated adherence to the MONGO case: [26] [27], both in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Guilt_by_association (though note that neither Schmucky nor I are active "there"). Please keep this in mind when considering the good faith of MONGO's request here. Milto LOL pia 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for clarification here...if indeed, the MONGO case is now superceded by the Attack Sites case...I am sorry if I used some of your comments, but that was needed in order to demonstrate that, as I stated, many seem to believe that the MONGO case is essentially null and void.--MONGO 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using my comments, I have a problem with you reverting me, your ENTIRE reason being that I'm an ED contributor, which isn't even true anymore for crying out loud! And then that's all you have to say on the talk as well. Milto LOL pia 07:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just asked you a simple question, and yes, I do believe that if an editor is an active partcipant in contributing to ED, and they are trying to remove language from the NPA policy which prohibits linking to that capricious website, then that is an issue with me, and should be for every editor that cares about protecting others from insidious harassment.--MONGO 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made it clear to you several times, MONGO, that I have no desire to see that website linked anywhere. I'd revert war to remove sch a link to it if it weren't blacklisted. Further discussion about this is not helpful; perhaps can the committee plz clarify the MONGO ruling I linked to above? "Guilty by association"? Are contributors to a BADSITE free to be hounded and hassled as MONGO has done? If so, does this apply to only active contributors or anyone who has ever participated at such websites? Milto LOL pia 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The bigger issue is the probable COI...contributors to websites that harass our editors and want to deemphasize or even be able to link to these websites by making edits to a major policy page is a serious matter. Most importantly, I seek clarification that ED is indeed a "malicious site".[28]--MONGO 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring; no one is questioning that. I doubt it will happen but I'd like to request that arbcom make a motion to somehow restrict or sanction those who disrupt discussions by repeatedly, repeatedly, nauseatingly so, make bad faith references to former offsite activities by Wikipedians when it has been made abundantly clear that those activities have ceased. The lack of integrity shown by MONGO in his self-inflicted dealings with Schmucky, myself and I'm sure several others is personally appaling and has been a roadblock to productive discussion ever since the MONGO ruling. MONGO has turned every forum he can reach into a battleground against phantom harassment, dragging several good-standing Wikipedians into the dirt in the process, with the same sort of behavior discussed in the Seabchan (spelling?) case that led to his desysopping for failure to relate to other admins and the community in general on these issues. Victim of past harassment or not, this is disruptive and it needs to stop. Milto LOL pia 08:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that capricious website, and you have made recent edits there...so cease telling everyone you are no longer active there when you still are. I can't control whether you do contribute there and certainly don't have any right to, but don't expect me to see your removal of links to the NPA policy which makes it clear we don't link to that website as not being a COI.--MONGO 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) As a participant observer, my take on the matter is that use of overly broad "attack sites" language in the MONGO decision lead to (or set conditions allowing for) the past year's many conflicts over the "BADSITES" proposal and "ATTACK SITES" language in NPA. As the recently closed Arb case was initiated on the very concept of "ATTACK SITES," as it was applied (or misapplied) to a diverse host of issues, it therefore has to supercede the prior MONGO decision so far as that concept, which the ArbCom invented, can be considered useful as support for any current points in policy and related discussions. Regards to all, —AL ^FOCUS! 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• More idiocy on all sides and the page is protected again, I see. As an observer of the Arbitration process I note first that the committee had plenty of chances to specifically repudiate their earlier ruling and did not do so. However, the following principles in the Attack Sites case also passed:
  • Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
  • Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. (Appears to restate the MONGO decision, by the way.)
  • The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.
  • WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behavior have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Article content should be determined in a disinterested editorial manner; applying community policies or guidelines not intended for article content, or allowing one's own opinions of, or experiences with, the subject of an article, to be a consideration, is inappropriate.

So, I don't really understand the dispute. WP:NPA does not apply to article space. In project space and talk pages, don't post links to sites for the intent or purpose of harassing, intimidating or embarassing other editors. Don't link to sites that are primarily or substantially devoted to harassment. Links in articles should be based on editorial content policies. I suggest that these points cover nearly every possible situation (provided editors are not arguing to make a point, or from a position of bad faith--desire to let more trolling on board, for example), and I'm perfectly happy to enforce these principles any time a problem is pointed out to me, regardless of edit warring over the written policy. Thatcher131 15:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "remanded to the community" is unclear? The Committee has no desire to impose a policy regarding which links are permitted or not permitted; the community needs to come together and develop one on its own. Editors arguing over what sites may or may not be banned under some interpretation of the case decision are missing the point in a very big way. Kirill 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum...so is the MONGO case null and void, or isn't it? Please look over the findings and remedies of that case if you get the time.--MONGO 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and concur with that. The primary issue to be clarified is whether the wording in the recent "Attack sites" case supercedes or renders null or obsolete the wording in the prior "MONGO" case, mainly as concerning the notion of "Attack sites," not whether certain links are still permissible or not. I know the Committee does not write policy, but its decisions are used to support policy points, so the clarification is needed. I respectfully second the request for clarification from members of the Committee.—AL ^FOCUS! 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 says it well, I think. The specifics of ruling in the MONGO case applies to the MONGO case. The specifics of ruling in the Attack sites case applies to the Attack site case. I don't know how much clearer we can say it. As a general rule, per existing policy, if a site is being used for harassment, to bully, or embarass then the links should be removed as we have said in Principles of our the rulings. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That answers the question adequately for me, thank you. So my understanding of the matter is, the remedies and principles passed in the MONGO case were meant to specifically apply to ED, and still do. The BADSITES proposal, in all its incarnations including at NPA, attempted to use the "attack sites" abstraction to apply the specific remedies passed in the MONGO case against ED to off-site links to various critical sites across en.wiki. This obviously became disruptive, leading to the case specifically on the "Attack sites" concept, which encompassed a number of these instances. While the ArbCom did not revisit the specifics of the MONGO case, it did find that its rulings had been misapplied as policy: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Inappropriate_application_of_policy. While the principles between both cases to me seem consistent with each other, in this case the Arb Com did not recommend a specific set of remedies, such as 3RR exceptions, to be applied against ASM and like sites, instead remanding the matter to the community. So the final impression I take away from all this is that the MONGO case, while not rendered null and void in itself as concerning ED, should not and never should have been applied "across the board" to other sites automatically as policy, and with this ruling the ArbCom leaves it to the community to develop appropriate policies for the problem of links to off-site harassment.—AL ^FOCUS! 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to say it looks to me that that Arbcom doesn't create policies in general, and in the Attack Sites case in particular, Arbcom explicitly very much reiterated that it doesn't create policies. If we want to know what our policies towards BADSITES should be, we should be asking the community, not the committee. That's what _I_ think the attacksite ruling was basically trying to say, anyway. --Alecmconroy 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting piece of Wikipedia history. It seems to me that ED is mainly there for the "drama" (flamewars, stupid stuff, idiocy, funny stuff) relating to popular Internet (and especially MMORPG and 4Chan culture. Those people are fond of flame warring, and the point of flame warring is to attack other people (or to make a bad joke about them). The vast majority of them probably don't mean what they say, but there may be a few that do - and it is those few that are the problem. Those few like to bully people (there was the infamous - among them - "Pool's Closed" incident of July 12, 2006, in which people deliberately tried to crash a MMO or virtual universe called Habbo, which, according to ED sources, caused a ddos attack as well, which they claim was inadvertent. The Habbo raid, anyhow, was said to be centered around 4chan, not ED). They claim to be more about the Internet while Uncyclopedia is more about "generic humor". They are a bit sysop-centered. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this the "MONGO case" anyhow? MONGO wasn't the only guy involved in it, he was merely a sysop, and calling it the "MONGO" case fails to capture the whole thing. Shouldn't it be "MONGO and (alleged?) attack sites"? — Rickyrab | Talk 04:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Mackensen

As the committee is no doubt aware Encyclopaedia Dramatica is presently up on Deletion Review, in the form of a new draft article (User:Shii/ED). This editorial process is constrained by findings and rulings from the MONGO case, and may well have outlived their usefulness. The case turned on the harrassment of MONGO by other users, many of whom were connected with ED. While lamentable, this shouldn't have any bearing on our ability to cover or not cover a topic: it is not necessary to endorse the existence of thing in documenting it. Our policies demand an honest editorial debate on the matter, but the broadness of remedy # 1 and the obvious personal umbrage taken by numerous editors, including at least one sitting arbitrator, precludes such a debate.

FoF # 13 states that the article was deleted because "the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source." Arbcom isn't supposed to make content rulings, but we sometimes sneak them in anyway through obiter dicta like that one. Real challenges have been raised as to whether this is really the case anymore, and Shii's draft article does not fit such a description. This, more than anything else, suggests that the principles which undergird the case are no longer operative.

I would request that remedy # 1 be clarified either to refer only to articles concerning specific Wikipedia users, or revoked altogether. Most things on ED aren't suitable for this wiki anyway because of our "vast policy differences." In my view the committee overreached and prejudiced editorial decisions in drafting this decision. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Hey all...my deepest appreciation for informing me about this discussion! Seriously, an arbitration case I was named in, that appears to be on the threshold of having its major motions and remedies eliminated or severely altered and NO ONE BOTHERS TO LET ME KNOW! As can be seen by the DRV on this article, there does not seem to be a community backed consensus to restore the article that has been developed in another editor's userspace. [29]...so what brings all this up? Well, let me inform you of what I know. Firstly, over a dozen of our editors resigned due to the ongoing harassment posted about them at that website...Do we need to be so inclusive we risk losing editors just so we can be such a compendium of "knowledge"...I think not. The website is of only marginal notability at best...at best. Let me repeat my first point...I know of at least a dozen editors who quit editing here because of the stuff posted on that website. I know this because after I went through what I did with the people affiliated with that website, I received over a dozen calls for aide...at one point the possibility of suing them was considered. Phaedriel was probably the best known editor to abandon this project...thanks in no small part to that website. Second point...IF we recreate the article, then ultimately someone will link to that website...that is where my fight started. They made their MONGO article "featured" and posted it on their mainpage...I repeatedly removed those links from our article on that website and was combated by a series of trolls and other editors who for some bizarre reason did not understand that I was not going to allow them or that website to libel me via this one...I am not a pedophile as the people there have written. Phaedriel is not the things they claim about her, nor are the other "wikipedos" that they have listed, accurately depicted. For the record, the article they have on me is far from the worst...very far from it. But I am here on wikipedia to write articles and to protect our editors from harassment...I cannot do that if we, as a website, are going to turn a blind eye to this major issue just so we can be "all inclusive", especially when we are talking about a website of extremely marginal notability, that attacks our contributors, and yes, slanders and libels them. Many complain that we, right here on Wikipedia, also slander and libel people, especially in our bios...that is a serious issue, but we have the power here to do something about that. We do not have the power to make adjustments to the same (and generally far worse) slander and libel that ED presents. But we can control whether we import that nonsense here. There are still millions of articles we can write...what the heck makes having an article on ED so important? How many articles do we yet lack about various insect species, birds, plants, glaciers, people, events, places? Maybe the committee would be better off telling the dramaqueens that have started to proliferate this website to start writing articles and stop wasting our server space with their generally worthless opinions, than spending so much energy rewriting an arbitration case in which the situation hasn't changed...that website still lacks notability, it still libels our contributors, it will ultimately lead to further problems...and further time wasted here, in this particular forum. Lastly, I do have other things I can do with my time than edit here...my life is valuable to me and the friends I have made here on this website are important to me...let's not be trendy and get limp wristed about this matter...we have an obligation to do all we can to make editing here a pleasant experience...not one where we have to look over our shoulder wondering why some creep has decided that he can link to ED and attack our contributors in the process. Yes, I know, the committee does not make content rulings in most cases...well maybe you should in this matter and do so with the spirit of respect and in the interest of facilitating encyclopedia writing and the writers who contribute here and ensuring they have the ability to spend their valuable personal time in peace as much as possible.--MONGO 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is really funny and so predictable. I just knew good ole Dtobais would show up to make his comment here...he wants Sceptre's activities examined here...lets instead examine Mr. Tobais...yes, examine via his own precious links to wikipedia review the less than appealing comments he has made about our editors...heck, lets examine his ongoing insults posted right here on this page and numerous others on wikipedia, where he neverendingly refers to those with the opposite beliefs of his on this type of subject as cabals, cliques, cadres.--MONGO 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the arbitration committee has no authority to eliminate the potential for an article on encyclopedia drmatica if the community decides that there are suffcient reliable sources to be able to write a NPOV article on that subject. But I do want to reclarify that it sure is odd that anyone would be so concerned about this matter when we still lack potentially millions of articles on subjects as benign as butterflies, birds and plants.--MONGO 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dtobias

The ill-conceived original MONGO decision was an unwarranted attempt on the part of ArbCom to make policy, and has been continually cited ever since by a small clique that is intent on imposing censorship of links that hurt their feelings. This BADSITES concept, a really bad idea, has been resoundingly rejected by the community as a whole every time it has come up. It's time to drive a stake through its heart once and for all. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we don't let millions of Muslims offended by our images of Mohammed sway our editorial decisions, but we do let the offense of a handful of Wikipedians against ED influence us, says loads about our screwy priorities. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some inquiry into the actions of User:Sceptre would seem to be warranted; he attempted to intimidate the editor who proposed deletion review of ED by referring repeatedly to earlier people who did a similar thing getting banned, and also censored the discussion using a highly expansionist interpretation of the past ArbCom ruling whereby even links to the Alexa rankings of ED were considered illegal. His actions present a poster child for why the ArbCom ruling was a bad idea and ought to be overturned. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny and predictable that, rather than respond in a rational manner to my comments, MONGO instead engages in ad-hominem attacks at me. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another response to MONGO: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument in debates about creating or deleting articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

I note that the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica recently closed as "keep deleted", which is a fair enough close. I did notice one further edit, possibly as a result of this, or maybe not. Would the arbitration committee be able to comment on whether "recreation of the article" covers Encyclopedia Dramatica being mentioned at all in Wikipedia articles? ie. either in passing in other articles, or as a paragraph about the website, or as a section or entry in a list article? I raised this possibility at the DRV, but it didn't generate much discussion (possibly I arrived at the DRV too late for many people to even read what I posted there). I noted there that a sentence mentioning Encyclopedia Dramatica had existed at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous criticism for at least 5.5 months with seemingly no objections. Shortly after the deletion review finished, an IP editor removed the sentence in question from the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article. I have raised the issue at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Satire sentence removed. My question is, since that was to my knowledge the only reference in any Wikipedia article to Encyclopedia Dramatica, are we trying to remove any and all references to Encyclopedia Dramatica from all articles? If not, then are editors free to add "subarticle" level of material on Encyclopedia Dramatica to other Wikipedia articles where relevant? Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question has now been reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• "MONGO" (Oct 2006) and its more measured sister case a year later, "attack sites" (Oct 2007), were cases held at a time of high pressure. Shortly after the 'attack sites' case, the matter was in fact resolved not by huge edits and new policies, but by a few simple edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and a backup page explaining offsite attack links. MONGO is still cited these days as a base case on some issues, so it's worthwhile for that reason too -- especially as a significant number of users feel that it is now an arbcom-imposed 'blocker' for a possibly valid article, for reasons decided in the context of a heated dispute around 18 months ago. The community has broadly appeared to mature and deal with the issue, but these two cases are still cited and occasionally lead to problems and conflicts in the editorial process. Decisions drafted at heated times, especially very influential decisions, are often targeted to deal with the present issue and may well benefit from review, to consider whether they are still the best for us. Now its calmer, its sensible to have a second look at their long term results and double-check if those're the best we have. Without prejudice as to outcome, I'd agree that it may be useful to have a review by the Committee to consider these in the light of 2008. We probably could usefully do so. Accept. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. The Arbitration Committee should not permanently make a content ruling, if at all. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments:

As noted above, a deletion review of Encyclopaedia Dramatica ("ED") is taking place—DRV being the appropriate forum because permission is being sought to re-create an article on a previously deleted topic. In the discussion so far, the majority view appears to be that ED is of borderline notability in terms of warranting a Wikipedia article, meaning that is within a reasonable discretionary range whether to have an article on it or not. In that context, in my DRV comment I made what I thought was a commonplace observation noting that ED's content includes material intentionally targeted at harassing and causing emotional distress to Wikipedia contributors. For example, because I once intervened as an administrator in an attempt to stop what I perceived as on-wiki harassment of an editor who was a minor, an ED article now lists me among Wikipedians who should be "rounded up and gassed like Jews." The Wikipedia community could quite reasonably determine that this type of material on a borderline-notable website disqualifies it from entitlement to a Wikipedia article publicizing such material or from any other form of our further attention. However, to the extent I expressed this opinion on the DRV, I did so as an individual editor, not as an administrator and certainly not as an arbitrator.

Mackensen appears to be concerned that this committee's unanimous decision barring links to ED in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, followed by the more splintered decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, are being read by some as a prohibition against re-creating an article on ED regardless of the outcome of the DRV. Although this frankly would not be a heartbreaking result, I can understand the view that even so extreme a situation as gave rise to the committee's MONGO decision in the first place (it was written for a reason) should yield to the longstanding rule that the Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions.

Three of my colleagues above have voted to "accept" this matter for a review. Normally, requests for clarification are the subject of either arbitrator comments or a motion, not of "acceptance" or "rejection." In the two instances in which a case was formally accepted for review, a case page was created for statements and evidence, the review case stayed open for a number of weeks, and a new decision containing a full set of principles, findings, and remedies was handed down. That procedure would seem to be overkill in the context of the particular issue raised, would probably create a spate of Arbitratia Dramatica, and would threaten to consume a substantial amount of the community's and the committee's time and attention, at a time when the committee is behind schedule in dealing with several of our pending cases despite a historically low caseload.

Moreover, if, as my colleague FT2 suggests above, the issues underlying the Attack sites case have largely been resolved by the community, it would be grossly counterproductive to reopen the matter at the ArbCom level, particularly given that the main remedy in the Attack sites decision was a referral of the policy issues to the community in the first place.

Under the circumstances, the best way to deal with the request for clarification is probably to have an up-or-down vote on the principal concern expressed. Accordingly, I offer (but will abstain from voting on) the motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be better conceptually, rather than a ruling that says "don't link to ED" and another that says "you can create an article though", to modify those decisions to refer to the class of links that are problematic, and the class of sites ED is in, and how they should be handled? It is possible to say "creating an article on ED is allowed without using any source on ED", but it might be nicer (and more productive) to handle it like this:

1. Give a clear definition of the way to gauge if a link is an "attack link" problem, and then clarify those links fall under WP:NPA,
2. Clarify that in referencing sites known for carrying attacks and outings, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a different location, and provide that consensus (not "attack site/BLP" revert wars and fighting) are looked to, if there is uncertainty, and
3. Update references in "MONGO" to these more useful concepts.

This conceptually covers not just ED, but all such cases in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is abstaining), so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion 1 - It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):

The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.

passed at 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC), will be enacted in 24 hours unless the voting changes. Thatcher 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that permitting creation of a specific article on ED, and the suggestions below, are mutually compatible if needed.)
2. Paul August ☎ 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. For the purposes of clarification of the previous decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support with the understanding that "this motion" will be re-visited if needed. My main concern comes from the past practice of keeping low quality content on site if there is not a consensus to remove vs. requiring a consensus to keep the low quality content. When closing Afds and DRVs, the Community is moving away from this practice especially if there are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy concerns. This more recent practice is a reasonable approach to resolving user concerns that once low quality articles are added that it must remain on site in anticipation that it will eventually bloom into a well balanced good quality article. If needed I think that the Committee should endorse this practice in a ruling. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article, if ever re-created in a low quality state, might be an good example of why this is not a good idea. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Shouldn't need saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Definitely. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Proposed per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I dislike aspects of the wording on this but agree that the committee should get out of the business of allowing or disallowing articles on particular topics.

---

Motion 2 - Linking if article recreated

If an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica is recreated, then editors may link to or quote that site for that article only, and only so far as is necessary to present high quality encyclopedic coverage whose citing is not possible from independent reliable sources. Questionable quotations and links may be removed by any user without regard to 3RR, pending discussion.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) If recreation is allowed, then guidance on linking is needed, else we will surely have an immediate clarification request. Proposed guidance can be summed up as, "only if you really have to, and only on that article (and pertaining to it)". The "removal" clause is out of respect for the concerns of those who, if it is recreated, will have strong reservations about abuse.

Oppose:

1. This would be fair as applied to most sites discussed in the "Attack pages" case or any similar site, but I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. The points made about linking in the Attack sites case remain pertinent here; I see no reason to carve out exceptions for specific sites at this point. Kirill 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
5. This would lead to confusion beyond necessity. On balance, I don't think this would improve the project. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
7. If it is recreated then linking should follow the regular standards and it is always better avoiding exceptions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer to decide whether to cross this bridge when we come to it, in other words when it is agreed that there can be an article on ED. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Motion 3 - Attack links

Links to media and other non-wiki pages, and external web pages, may be described as "attack links" if it is likely that a user following them would be exposed to material that is a clear personal attack or "outing" on themselves or other specific user(s). It is irrelevant whether the attack is explicit or subtle, or in what format it may be. In judging whether a link is an 'attack link', or judging 'likelihood' for a website, attention should be paid to the size and nature of the site, the location linked within it, the focus and usefulness of material found there, and the likely intentions of the poster, and 'attacks' are to be carefully distinguished from mere 'criticisms'. A link may be an attack link in one context and not in another, and may need removal even if not deliberately posted as a means of personal attack.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. Compare MONGO 11: 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 ("an attack site/link is one with these characteristics, and these norms apply"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2. I see no need to dig up Attack sites at this point; the present matter shows that the community is able to deal with it as a matter of course, if nothing else. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. This is an attempt to revive 'Attack sites' which was rejected by the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Charles, Flo. The community either has no real appetite for this policy, or insufficient cohension to push it through, as per the previous cases. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) History has shown that it will not help matters for us to preach on this.
7. There are still options for the community to handle this itself. It is not a necessity. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Motion 4 - Sourcing from websites known to carry material pejorative to users

In referencing sites known for carrying attack or "outing" material against users, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a better location. Any user may replace such a link by another link serving the same purpose, from a less contentious website, or removing it (with posters agreement if possible) if it is not needed for a legitimate communal process. Links that have both valid concerns and also possible value, may need consensus-seeking to determine whether they have enough value to override the possible concerns.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. This is a more useful and usable reworking of the aim of the MONGO restrictions on certain sites. It does not introduce any contentious new policy, but does well address the situation and similar situations that MONGO tried to address on ED. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Paul August ☎ 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Per Brad.
3. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Same issue as motion 3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Per my thoughts on 3. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Per my comments on 3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Motion 5 - Amendment to past cases

In the case "Mongo", principles 3 and 7 shall be reworded to refer to "attack links", remedy 1 shall be reworded to refer to "links that the community determines are attack links may be removed" (etc.), and enforcement 1 shall refer to "attack links" and the reference to imported material and recording of blocks struck out.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2. To go with opposition to motions 3 and 4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Let sleeping dogs lie. Past principles have no value for precedent or policy. They had the purpose of explaining how a decision was made. If the decision was wrong, we should be considering that for review, not undermining it in this fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. per Charles Matthews. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer a simple statement that a policy adopted by consensus of the community supersedes the MONGO and Attack sites cases, if that is what it is sought to accomplish here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   The bulk of MONGO and Attack sites is sound and we probably don't wish to weaken or upturn them. But these specific items are outdated, and 18 months on hinder rather than help. Withdrawing them will be useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Conti (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by Conti

The article about Encyclopedia Dramatica was recently recreated after this DRV. My question is simple: Are we allowed to link to that wiki (in whatever form) at Encyclopedia Dramatica? It's a content decision, yes, but since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO states quite clearly that "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia"[30], it would be best if the Arbitration Committee would clarify whether that ruling is true for the article about ED, too. Can we link to that site, or aren't we even allowed to mention its URL? Or is it up to the community to decide whether we want a link or not? --Conti|✉ 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WAS 4.250

Please comment on this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Wikidemo

As someone who just stumbled into this, the dispute is very odd. Lately some have objected to the placing of a live link, and even a dead or commented-out link, from the article about this content site to the site's main page. Nearly every other notable website / service or company has a routine link to the main site, either in its infobox or in the external links section. In this case, the company in question is blacklisted by arbitration ruling because a determined group of people were using links to derogatory material there as a way of harassing a prominent Wikipedia editor. The purpose of the earlier ruling did not seem to be to deny the the existence of the site, or to censor encyclopedic coverage of notable things in the world that happened to reflect negatively on Wikipedia - more specifically, the earlier ruling was not an attempt to make the content decision on whether such things should be covered. Rather, it was merely to stop the harassment and use of Encyclopedia Dramatica as an attack site. To prohibit a routine WP:EL in this case, would seem to be an unintended and inadvertent consequence of the ruling. There are a lot of websites in the world, some that are vulgar, frivolous, and offensive (some cases in point: Fucked Company, Max Hardcore, Aryan Nations). If we cover them we link to their home page. To turn up our nose in this one case because the site is a parody of Wikipedia, would seem petty and censorious. Certainly, anyone can type these words into google and find the link, so we are not hiding their existence - just making a statement that we don't like them so we won't link to them. Wikidemo (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see any contributory infringement issue. We can link to home pages of sites when there is known infringement somewhere on the site. If we avoided a main page link every time we knew there was likely infringement somewhere on the site we couldn't link to youtube, google, Facebook, Myspace, etc. Probably couldn't link to Wikipedia either. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2's analysis below is eloquent and persuasive. Regarding the concerns that an external link may be gamed, how about simply providing that we may link to the main page of their site, but that the link may be removed summarily (and possibly temporarily) any time ED posts blatant copyright infringement or an attack on Wikipedians on that page? If this becomes burdensome or a cat-and-mouse game the community will grow tired of it and remove the link for good; if things settle down and ED goes about its many other pursuits on its main page we will link to them as we would to any other controversial site. Establishing a firm rule that one particular site is forbidden to wikipedians is akin to prior restraint in the wider world. Wikidemo (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

ArbCom, by its own admission, does not make policy or intervene in content disputes. This ill-conceived decision of theirs has been responsible for much mischief and drama ever since it was issued, including being the genesis of the BADSITES non-policy. Now that the original context of the decision -- the state of affairs after the ED article was deleted and wasn't expected to be recreated any time soon -- is no longer in effect, neither does it make any sense to enforce the decision on links specifically in the article itself, where making any variance from the normal policy of linking to websites about which articles are concerned (a policy that is followed even with "hate sites" like Stormfront (website)) is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Sceptre: Yuck, what a mess... that previous "ArbCom clarification" is as clear as mud, with arbitrators opposing for a variety of contradictory reasons, ranging from wanting to maintain a flat ban on links to the site, to wanting to have links dealt with by editors under normal policy without any special exceptions, to regarding any decision on the issue to be premature before an ED article actually exists. Well, the article exists now, so they can't dodge the responsibility of coming to a coherent position, even if that position is to bounce the whole issue back to the community to be decided as a content issue as normal. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Durova: Your theory that it's invalid to link to anything in ED, including to its home page from the article on the site, because the site allegedly contains copyright violations, is a novel one with little support in either prior Wikipedia policy actions or case law; all prior cites that I know of concerned linking directly to infringing material for the specific purpose of making the specific material accessible, not to a generic site link that might happen to let a user eventually find some unknown infringement. I think you're just fishing for alternative justifications to prevent links to that site after earlier justifications have been discredited. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Hu12: I'm going to call "bullshit" on your assertion that ED exists for the "sole and primary purpose of promoting co-ordinated vandalism and personal attacks on Wikipedians". That actually seems to be a fairly minor purpose of theirs, subsidiary to their main goals of producing a (tasteless and vulgar) parody encyclopedia, as well as documenting Internet memes and drama in a semi-serious way. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence

This is an excellent opportunity for the community to review and decide upon whether any content/editorial decisions are within the authority of the Arbitration Committee. The AC's response in regards to such a test case could go significantly towards any community-mandated or enforced Arbitration reform, and the authority the community (as the body that empowers the AC) has over the Committee. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. The Arbitration Committee can say only they can change their policy page, but they still can't do anything the community does not support. It's really that simple. As Jimmy Wales (who himself only has "power" because we allow it as he is neither the owner of Wikipedia and just one more board member) turned over control of the AC to itself (evidenced by their ability to overrule him) and the fact that an AC without the community willing to enforce it is toothless and irrelevant, yes. My simple point is that anything they do, which is normally spot-on, has to be accepted by the community to have authority. The AC members themselves in the IRC case talk page/proposed decision confirmed this to me, including Brad and Jpgordon. They have significant power, but it is finite and tightly defined power. As the question of the AC making policy or content/editorial decisions comes up regularly, this is a perfect time to see what they think of that. If the community signs off on them having editorial/content control, swell. If they don't sign off... well, then the AC can't do that. They answer to the community, not the other way around. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NVS

Lawerence, are you sure? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To the committee; I encourage the committee to permit this article to have a live link. To deny a link, may contravene our Neutral point of view policy indirectly, something we hold dearly. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment that Durova made regarding copyright gives me pause. I'd like to abstain from comment here until I can research her claim myself. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Researched it. I think the community should decide on this. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kirill, please clarify your answer. It is ok if the community wants to link ED to the ED article? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

The AC voted 1/7/1 to support an exception for a link in the ED article only two months ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martinp23

It is manifestly outside the remit of the ArbCom to make a decision on policy or on content. I would urge the committee to withdraw their previous statement (as posted by Sceptre above) and leave the matter up to a normal interpretation of the rules. By being involved in this question at all, ArbCom is exerting an influence over and above that which a dispute resolution body should have. Martinp23 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps FT2's comments would be better placed on the talk page of the article in question as part of a community discussion into whether the link should be included. Not in what is evolving into an "ArbCom statement of policy". Martinp23 17:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Z00r

This request for clarification is largely irrelevant. The previous ruling, as applied to this article, is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. ArbCom is a dispute resolution body that answers to the community, and NPOV and NOTCENSORED are an expression of community concensus embodied in official policy. Should ArbCom continue to deny the use of such links in this situation, they would be overstepping their authority and should be ignored. Z00r (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

Per WP:COPYRIGHT#Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [31]). This isn't mere theory: see "Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church", which hinges on a contributory copyright infringement link. Currently this Wikinews story is on the front page of Slashdot.

It would exceed the Committee's mandate to authorize an outgoing link to ED, which practices extensive copyright infringement. This is a matter for the law and for Foundation counsel, if such a proposal is to be entertained at all. Given the current ongoing news it is highly unlikely that it would get anywhere. Durova^Charge! 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We have to delink all outbound links to Youtube, Geocities, Wikileaks, and any other user-edited site then (including slashdot, which has linked in the story and comments you linked to the Mormon material. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, threaded discussion is inappropriate here. And I do take out large numbers of contributory copyvio links (check my contribution history). This is a matter for Mike Godwin, not for ArbCom and certainly not for random volunteers. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Kendrick7^talk

Just a reminder that the involved editors should simply apply the WP:BADLINKS guideline here, which represents the end point of community consensus regarding that old ArbCom suggestion on links in the MONGO case. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Exxolon (talk)

This is beyond the ArbCom's remit. The ArbCom is here to deal with serious violations of policy by users, not to formulate policy itself. The community is sovereign in this decision, not the judiciary. Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Hu12

Currently some external links are permitted by various guidelines, however they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any specific Wikipedia policy to be included. Overturning or ruling in this matter may create a dangerous precedent which could encourage linking to sites that;

1. Put people in danger
2. Compile and sponsors efforts to obtain real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
3. Publish or make public private Wikipedian information;
4. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
5. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians;

encyclopediadramatica.com exists for the sole and primary purpose of promoting co-ordinated vandalism and personal attacks on Wikipedians. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here, and should be excluded. Arguments for inclusion goes against common sense, obvious community disapproval and human decency. Rationale for allowing links from ED becomes quite secondary to the potential harm the site has previously done and continues to demonstrates it intends to do. Wikipedia should not advocate recruitment via external linking of this site.--Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition;

• encyclopediadramatica.com fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”
• Copyright
  • Linking to copyrighted works

--Hu12 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Lid

It seems odd to me that ED continues to be the exception based off such bizarre rulings as it contains copyright material (most websites linked to on wikipedia too) or it insults people on the internet (which hasn't prevented linking to, for example, Something Awful) or at the extreme that its a wikipedia terrorist website (seriously, trying to sweep it under the rug and demonise it just lowers your position, not to mention the claims are spurious and incorrect). In addition to all of this is that by its own description ArbCom does not make decisions of content, and this clearly is a decision about article content making it a violation of ArbCom's own practice.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that WP:NPOV is being thrown out the window because people can't keep their emotions in check in this specific case alone because it affects wikipedia editors. Wikipedia in the past has offended many religions, races, countries and politically inclined people through its content that we have stood behind because of NPOV and resistance to censorship. To become the angry mob that we resist in every other debate over content because it relates to wikipedia is hypocritical and largely indefensible. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornography is the most recent example of wikipedia offending others but standing up against them. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Chunky Rice

I'm somewhat confused by the clarification as it now stands. Kirill indicates that this is a matter for the community to decide. FT2 starts out saying that it should be a community matter, but then indicates that he thinks that the prohibition on links to ED should stand as is. Then James F. says he agrees with both of them and, given their apparent disagreement, I don't know what that means. Because of the highly contentious nature of this decision, I think that an unambiguous statement is needed here as to whether there is an Arbcom prohibition on linking to this website in the article about that website, or if this is to be considered a standard content decision to be determined by community consensus. Thank you. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We ourselves, as a committee, often have divergent views and need to consider how our own consensus goes as well. As time's passed and the community handles more cases, we get far more difficult and contentious ones, so you'll regularly find Arbitration cases that go into novel territory. In time something unambiguous will develop from it, so to speak, if it remains an issue. (If it isn't an issue, then that's an answer too.) Cases like this often have a period where you have to see what happens. Hope that helps somewhat. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the response. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

The article was ultimately deleted after a long battle I had regarding linking to it. I imagine that others, maybe even myself again will have to endure the same nonsense if we allow links to that website...namely, I was trolled via email and my usertalk that an article about MONGO had been created there...later, when they made the MONGO article their "featured article" of the day...I was further harassed by anons and others. I removed links to that article to protect myself from offsite harassment...I guess I don't like being called a pedophile.--MONGO 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm fairly certain that this matter has already come up for clarification (albeit in a more hypothetical manner), and that we stated fairly clearly at the time that our prohibition on linking to ED was contingent on there not being a legitimate article on the site, and that the existence of such an article was a matter for the community to decide. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify: as far as I'm concerned, at this point, the community can do whatever it wishes regarding the existence of an ED article and the presence of links to ED, whether within that article or elsewhere. Kirill ^(prof) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I initially have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand wherever possible, we aim to be dispassionate and neutral. Unfortunately this is a site that as a sideline specializes (amongst other things) in hurtful, disparaging, defamatory, malicious personal attacks on a wide range of internet users, which inevitably includes a number of Wikipedians. Whatever page is linked to, is likely to be considered fair game for such an attack to be posted, exactly because it can be gamed.

The decision whether ED is notable or not, is a communal one. To a great extent the decision whether ED should have an article or be linked, is also a communal decision. The only reason the Arbitration Committee is involved in it, is because when the wider community cannot reach decisions in some kinds of matters, we get asked to form a view and a ruling, binding on all. ED's article and the repeated deletion and linking disputes (in the context of attack sites, the MONGO case, admin disputes, and communal divisions generally) was that kind of issue. It was for that reason only, this committee in previous years was asked to consider it by the community, and gave a decision on ED and links to that site.

My personal feeling is that this decision, sadly, should stand. After thinking, I'm inclined to feel that at least for the time being, no links should be allowed.

To recap the main arguments, there are enough users who strongly feel ED has done harm (and perhaps continues to do it), and that even allowing an article to exist is too much, too even-handed, or doubtful given sources. There are also many users who strongly feel we should be neutral, and treat it in principle the same as any other topic, as we would Stormfront or any other site with hostile views to some people, even if it has targetted some of our users. The main divisions and dynamics underlying the previous decision have not gone away.

What has changed is that there has been a DRV in which it was decided the site passed (possibly barely and subject to AFD) our notability criteria. The article has been recreated. We can regulate the quality of our own article - if necessary via page protection. But the moment we link to ED, the link used may be gamed, no matter what page it is to. The difference between an ED article and a Stormfront article is, a link to the latter is less likely to be gamed arbitrarily. A link to ED is unusually likely to be. Attacks posted on this site may not be restrained - indeed, activities by others "seeking the lulz" have sometimes lacked even slight restraint.

Wikipedia is in the real world - we may not always have a viable ideal solution that all can agree upon. Stepping back a bit, links to a site are less crucial than links to reliable independent sources about the site. We cannot prevent other web sites acting as they will; we are not under any obligation to assist in giving them any pages that will receive higher traffic from us, to help them do so, if their track record is sufficiently hostile to the mere existence of the editorial community here. ED is one of a small number of sites that overall would be likely to get rated that way. Even though it would be unusual, we can host a neutral article about it, without any informational links to it. For the time being, that is probably the best solution. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just in case there was doubt, I echo FT2's thoughts in general, and Kirill's comment (re. our previous clarification) in particular. James F. (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: MONGO (February 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Steve M at 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

MONGO arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Steve M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification for MONGO

Information about amendment request

• Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.

• Links to the main page, encyclopediadramatica.wiki and/or dramatica.online, may be permitted solely in the infobox of the article Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Statement by Steve M

While the site should 100% stay blacklisted, in the infobox, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there should be a link to the home page of the site, encyclopediadramatica.wiki and/or dramatica.online, inside the infobox. Other questionable sites, like wikipediocracy, another site with offwiki attacks against users, and goatse, a graphic NSFW shock site, have direct links to the site in the infobox. A whitelist to the homepages should exist solely for that purpose.

Statement by MONGO

No thanks. Just 'cause we have links to other hate sites doesn't mean we should have links to all. I wonder what the motivations would be to even link to it....are we going to gain some earth shattering encyclopedic revelation? I think a careful review of NOT is in order.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Its not a decision we would make in a modern case." It would be interesting to hear what exactly would be an ethical decision today. Not site ban those harassing others on and off site? Allow links to a site that not only did not have an article here due to no notability at the time as well as was being used to data mine real life information and post it allowing whatever nefarious creature might use it to engage in real life harassment?--MONGO (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't think it's fair to compare ED to Wikipediocracy or Goatse. Further, if someone wants to go there and we don't have a link, I imagine they can type ED into the browser and it will pop up. While Wikipedia isn't censored, that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards to sites like ED, especially when not doing so isn't that big of an effect on people reading the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by OhKayeSierra

The project as we know it today has very little resemblance to what it looked like in 2006. I think today's Wikipedia is much better at handling disruption and objectionable links at the community level than it was back then. With that said, I don't see any reason why this remedy should remain in place. As a content issue, I believe that it should fall to the editing community's consensus on how to handle links to ED. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I agree that this is something the present-day community is capable of handling on its own, and there isn't any need for ArbCom to remain in the picture. I think rather than removing it entirely though, the best thing to do would be to convert it into something modern - perhaps something like: "Links to and/or content sourced from Encyclopædia Dramatica should not be added to Wikipedia without an explicit consensus to do." Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@L235 and Beeblebrox: this is why I suggested "should not be added" rather than "may be removed" - guidance rather than rules. Thinking about it again I'd probably have used the word "included" rather than "added" but that is minor. I'm not sure I would vote for this motion were I an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

This is a make-work request asking Arbcom to do something with no defined benefit but with the potential of enabling harassment. I suggest that arbs turn it around by closing this request with a statement that anyone wanting to add working links to ED should make a new request after obtaining consensus in an RfC that such working links would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

MONGO: Clerk notes

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

• Worm That Turned, you cannot add blacklisted links as an administrator. I just tried in my sandbox. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

MONGO: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion: MONGO	5	2	2		1
Motion: MONGO (alt)	8	0	0		·

Notes

MONGO: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Steve brought this to me to ask if it was worth pursuing, and I do feel it is least worthy of discussion. The case is 14 years old. Things were different. (in fact the drafters seem to have gone out of their way to say that ED is sometimes interesting and compelling, which was not my experience at all the few times I have looked at it) It's a disgusting, horrible site (apparently two sites now, infighting having caused a split) but we allow links to other disgusting, horrible sites, because this is an encyclopedia. If people want to go look at horrible stuff, it is not an encyclopedia's job to make that harder for them. I think that we can uphold the general blacklisting of the site while allowing the normal website link in the infobox. Frankly this is not the kind of thing the committee even involves itself in anymore, deciding what can and cannot be linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm now feeling like i "buried the lead" in my initial comment. Others have expressed it well below, we should just remove the committee from this issue and let the community decide what is pretty clearly a content issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the enforcement log, there are three logged enforcement actions. Two were overturned in less than 24 hours, the third was an indef block that remains in place. There has been no further activity in the intervening 13 years. I am about ready to propose removing remedy 1, with the explicit purpose of leaving the matter to the community to resolve as they will. This specific part of the case simply doesn't merit committee attention anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading through that case was interesting, clearly a very different time on-wiki. Its not a decision we would make in a modern case. I think we should remove this from our jurisdiction and let the community decide, as this is a content decision. I'm not sure how to word the relevant motion, perhaps simply revoking Remedy 1 would do the trick. Its already on the blacklist, and its not going to get removed. Revoking Remedy 1 would allow the community to decide when/if it wanted to use the link. I am open to other solutions that allow the community to decide. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @MONGO: I was referring just to the link remedy. Of course we still would ban editors for harassment and the other equally nasty guff that case featured. I just think that our modern processes would have ensured that such a link was already blacklisted. Early ArbCom heard a lot of cases that just would never reach it in more modern times. These days we hear a handful of cases a year. Back in the day there were dozens or more a year, and ArbCom was handing out remedies that would now be given by AN (like blacklisting a link or removing it in troublesome situations). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

    I like Thryduulf's wording. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Beeblebrox that it's not Wikipedia's job to pre-filter reader's decisions to visit such sites. By doing so, we inherently violate our own rules to not have a POV which sites are "good" or "bad", so I would grant this amendment request. However, I do see CaptainEek's point that this is in fact a content decision and thus should by ultimately decided by the community. Since the site is already blacklisted in general, we can just repeal remedy #1 of that case and let the community decide whether to place a link in the article. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• From an editorial standpoint, I do not see the need for these links - and given how often they change their domain because they are taken down, it's not really a case of the wikipedia making it harder for editors - but rather do we want to be such a high profile place for an easy link to a site that cannot stand on its own for any length of time. However, this should be an editorial decision - not an Arbcom decision and I would support revoking the remedy and with a statement that content decisions should be made by the community. Due to the nature and level of the past (and I assume present) harassment, I would also support an amendment to say "the community may decide to allow the url on the ED wiki page only".
  From a technical perspective, can administrators add blacklisted links against the blacklist? If so, I would prefer it not whitelisted, to reduce the risk of multiple links being added to the page, even for a short time. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dreamy Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand that the blacklist means we could repeal remedy #1 without any concrete harm, but apart from the possibility of such informational links on the ED article, I have no desire to do so. I would prefer a clarification on our part that if the community simply wants links in the infobox and external links section, we will not consider that to be a violation. (N.b., the URL is already in the infobox, just not as a live link.) --BDD (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf's suggestion is very reasonable. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think, even in my short time as an arb, I've been pretty vocal in the "I trust the community to handle stuff" camp. Something about this request though, strikes me as different. Maybe it's just because I've now had a chance to read the emails about the anguish experienced by several editors over OUTING that I'm reluctant to change a sanction about this site given their glee at targeting enwiki editors. And maybe the best outlet for that discomfort is in any community discussion about changing this rather than here as an arb. But my unease is there and so I am bit conflicted about something that philosophically aligns with my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Dreamy Jazz for those notes. I think the community and committee will find this helpful at ARCA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Beeblebrox. Maxim_(talk) 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Motion: MONGO

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is rescinded. The matter is remanded to the community as a content issue. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy remain intact.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

1. As proposer. The committee shouldn't be regulating content. This should in no way be taken as an endorsement of ED or linking to it, we are simply removing the committee from the equation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Personal opinions aside, this is a content issue. A remedy like that would probably not pass today, so I see no reason to keep one alive just because it passed in the past. Regards SoWhy 09:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
3. I strongly believe that we should be keeping this blacklisted, but it is a content decision. Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

   Agree with the above. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC) pulling support for the moment given the comments in the discussion below. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Maxim_(talk) 13:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
5. This is for the community to decide. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I disagree with the idea that it's beyond our remit to assist editors who are facing harassment, including OUTING, because of their involvement as editors on Wikipedia. This case wouldn't play out the same way today - I suspect the community would indeed be able to handle it - but that doesn't mean, as this motion states, that it's purely a content decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Is more about harassment than content. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I understand the principle cited by the majority, but frankly I just don't see this subject as a concern warranting our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Here is a motion I think I can get behind: Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is rescinded. Editors who wish to insert a link to Encyclopædia Dramatica are encouraged to seek consensus through established community processes before doing so. The Committee expresses no opinion on any underlying content questions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Mildly copyedited. I would prefer that the last two sentences be replaced with something like "The Committee expresses no opinion on any underlying content questions." Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Barkeep49: Of course it is within our remit to deal with harassment. And posting links to offsite harassment or malicious doxxing is already against policy. What I do not think we would do today is say "linking to any part of <website> in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia, for any reason, is absolutely forbidden". That, combined with the fact that this remedy has not been invoked in 12 years, leads me to believe arbcom simply does not need to be involved in deciding whether or not a link to their main page is allowed in the article on the website itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think there's a different formulation of this that I could support that follows your line here rather than the wording of the motion. The request was to be able to link the item in the infobox which I agree is a community decision - I started typing my comment under support even. But that's not what this motion says. It says that all ED related links are a community decision and that is not a statement I can support as that site (now sites thanks to an apparent fork) continues to harass and OUT editors, including Mongo. Ultimately I don't think my oppose is going to be a big deal - I think there will be arb support to pass this motion as worded. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think I could support a motion which just doesn't say anything about the content at all. So basically remove the second sentence. If we want to add Kevin's wording about encouraging proactive consensus that's fine with me too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think I'm about where Barkeep is at the moment. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: MONGO (alt)

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. This is my attempt to act on Thryduulf's comments, or at least my understanding of them. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
2. I think this works nicely and is indeed the right frame for the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Reluctantly. I don't think it's our role to articulate the level of consensus needed for any particular action when that level is not itself grounded in community policy. But I will vote for this because I think it's probably better than the status quo, and it is the level of consensus that I would expect if I were approaching this as a community member rather than a committee member. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
4. It's not perfect, but it's specific and closer to meeting the concerns expressed in the first motion. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
5. The wording is fine by me, it still achieves the goal of preventing disruption but also giving the community the ability to use it if they desire. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
6. In essence, in small numbers of people discussing, if one person is upset they can essentially blackball the link...which I have no problem with really anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
7. While I'd rather have the other motion, I can live with this version too. Maxim_(talk) 19:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

• I'm not going to oppose this, I'd prefer we pass something rather than nothing, but I still feel as though arbcom should not be in the equation as far as the linking aspect. I guess I understand what you're going for here, trying to leave a tool in place to allow speedy removal of harmful links, but as I mentioned above, linking to offsite harassment is already prohibited by policy. I therefore believe that we simply do not need to be (and further should not be) involved at any level in making website-specific rules as to what can and cannot be linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is also my hesitation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"should not be included" does sound preferable to "may be removed", but I won't stand in the way here – better to do something now than nothing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.