Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Penwhale (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 14 September 2007 (→‎BADSITES: Opening). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 27 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Ankush135

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

Involved parties


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

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

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

Statement by Ankush135

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Closing Statement by Ankush 135

Couldn't follow the board for the last few days as was travelling. I might be violating a lot of Wiki norms by posting a response here but am not aware of most rules, hence if you feel so, please excuse it, if not, anyways...

Am very much amused by the reaction of DaGizza to my petition. He is a person who 1. condemned & punished me on mere suspicion 2. never gave me any warning or chance to explain 3. accused me of being a troll 4. removed my queries from his talk page and even edited my arbitration notice from the page.

The basis of my 'sockness' or whatever have ostensibly been edits which I have performed onRomila Thapar

DaGizza claims that I did not pretend to be hurt or try to defend myself. He does not find anger in my being blocked needlessly but dismisses my words as personal attacks. I never made any personal attacks before but put questions which because they pointed to his unreasonableness, lack of maturity and grace, stung him.

As clarified earlier, my tagging Hornplease/Doldrums was in response to me being tagged as a sock of some Bharatveer. And since it was these two guys who had engaged in a revert war on Romila's page that I thought them culpable and tagged them. Clarifications in that regards are there on my talk page.

As regards edit wars, if a 'respected' editor removes even the 'NOPV' tag inspite of incomplete/unsettled discussion, particularly when the page has already been referred to the Living Person's Biographies page [[9]], then I believe that the counter party has perfect right to re-insert the tag. After all, it does indicate the presence of a dispute, doesn't it?

If hornplease had read the case, I referred this issue to ArbCom only because an administrator asked me to

I have declared before that I use a remote access card to access internet, something which gives me a new IP each time I connect. Perhaps (though I very much doubt now) you realise that I did not even need to get my block lifted to create new ids and edit, simply because I am not constrained by IP blocking. I spent so much time and energy in trying to lift my block for I wanted to be a wikipedian the legitimately accepted way. This was my only account on Wikipedia. Ankush 135 never was a sock of any person but was the wiki identity of its owner's self. I did not resort to taking advantage of flexibility to create new accounts and wreak havoc. My insistence was only that the POV presented on Romila's page is not neutral and the basis on which information relating to controversies effecting her got reverted each time needs to be discussed before the matter is closed [[10]].

Feel free to declare me a sock. People have invaded countries on lesser pretexts :-) You have caught hold and condemned. It is unfortunate that I have had to interact with some people who are shallow, without basic intellect and think of their admin duties as a favour to others [[11]]. As an aside, somebody has tagged me a s a sock of some Kuntan much AFTER I had been blocked indefinitely by DaGizza

Perhaps I deserved this for I tried to uphold what I felt was correct and did not know that Wikipedia is a place ruled by McCarthists'. Anyways, doesn't matter now.

Happy blocking

Statement by DaGizza

My reasoning for blocking Ankush can be found in his block log [12]. Examining most of Ankush's contribs (Special:Contributions/Ankush135), he has engaged in revert warring and sock tagging very early in his Wiki-career. His edit-warring is evident in the Romila Thapar history page. In fact, his twenty-somethingth edit was tagging Hornplease and Doldrums as socks of each other.

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

His reaction to my block confirms my suspicions. I expect a good-faith new user to yes, probably get angry at me but otherwise try to defend their actions and probably act confused yet innocent. However, he has launch of personal attacks and incivil remarks on various users during his unblock attempts, [13], [14], [15], [16]. Other admins have declined his unblock request with what I believe to be satisfactory reasons [17], [18].

Statement by univolved KWSN

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

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

Comment by Moreschi

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

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

Comment by uninvolved Bakaman

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

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

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

Statement by Hornplease

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

Statement by Sandstein

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

Clerk notes

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

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


Requests for clarification

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

User:Proabivouac

Proabivouac (talk · contribs) asserts that this notification [19] on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard violates WP:HARASS. He has emailed me asserting that reverting his removal (as several people did) is linking to an attack site, outing and harassment. Since the notice appears to be an official one his problem would appear to be with ArbCom. I have suggetsed several times that he take it up with the arbitrators, but he seems to prefer debating this with me by email, which is not going to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I think any issues related to the probation can only arise when its terms are breached. If they prove not to, who cares about the details. El_C 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJBscribe touches on an important question, further compounded here by privacy issues posed by the prior account (this is something everyone here, except for me, would suffer in that event; i.e. using their real name or initials therein). El_C 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be reasonable to state that he is on probation, that the probation has been reset as he is now known to have been a party and to have changed accounts, as to whether we need to know which account, I would not like to say, and whether we'd need to record the evidence for transparency is also open to question. This does need clarifying. I agree that he is essentially the author of his own misfortune here, but we can probably come up with some way not to rub his face in it. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can archive the announcement to hide it from google but the basic facts have been known to some for more than 3 weeks. Announcing a probation with no underlying case would have only confirmed those facts for those who know, and stirred up the community of editors who didn't know. We would be falling all over ourselves to delete and oversight edits from the noticeboard as editors who think they have a right to know what goes on behind the scenes (and maybe they're right) try to figure it out and decide (as if they had a veto) whether it was justified. I can not think of a single instance where having the Arbitration Committee tell the community at large, "We have decided X now stop talking about it" has not had the opposite outcome. Thatcher131 11:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was it the arbitration committee was informed? I have a hunch, but would like to know if anyone has a different version than my hunch.--MONGO 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a concern which I shared with Dmcdevit. We both exchanged emails with the user, then Dmcdevit forwarded some information to the AC mailing list. Thatcher131 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there evidence of disruption which led you to do an investigation?--MONGO 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, MONGO, it was an attack thread on the so-called "attack site" which we've duplicated and exceded here. No one has credibly purported any disruption besides the purported disruption of removing warnings about my purported disruption.
Thatcher131, the very Wikimedia Foundation was informed well before that, as was an arbitrator and a great number of adminstrators.
Guy, the author of someone's misfortune has here a literal meaning, as does publisher. I'm glad you don't wish to rub my face in malicious attacks the Arbitration Committee has sponsored, hosted and published about anyone. The bottom line is that the Foundation has no right to publish this kind of material.Proabivouac 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A report was made to WP:AE, which I have watchlisted. Shortly after, I noticed that the report had disappeared and the edit was deleted. Since users who evade their probation are not normally afforded this privilege, I made some discreet inquiries as to whether this was a privacy issue that was known to ArbCom or not. Although the user claims to have informed one Arbitrator and gotten permission from the office, neither JamesF or Dmcdevit had any knowledge or record of a discussion approving this. Other than make the inquiry, I have taken no action and have not been involved in any discussions with ArbCom about their reaction. Whether the office can override ArbCom, or vice versa, is obviously beyond my scope. Thatcher131 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was getting at...where did the original info come from. My rhetorical question about any evidence of disruption from Proabivouc's editing history made me wonder who/why anyone would even look into this matter. It is not something anyone generally does unless there is a reason to do it...but then again, there are those that exist off-site who are very bored, very sad and very sick.--MONGO 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user who posted the now-deleted report is indeed suspected of being a banned user who hangs around an attack site. However, I first learned of the accusation on-wiki. I would also like to say that I am very disturbed at the claim that "a great number of administrators" knew that Proabivouac had changed his name and was evading his probation and that this somehow makes it ok. The Hkelkar 2 arbitration case was also partly about accusations that some admins were allowing banned editors to edit under new accounts or were encouraging meat puppetry. When NuclearUmpf was exposed as Zer0faults, his probation was vigorously enforced. I am currently wrangling with User:Ebonyskye which I believe is a reincarnation of User:GuardianZ who is under a topic ban. I don't like secret deals that allow some editors to evade blocks, bans and other remedies that apply to other uses who don't have the right connections. Thatcher131 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that no admins should help enable anyone evade an arbitration committee ruling and perhaps a comment made in private to the committee about any username change would have been best. However, what I see here is, as you have clarified, off-site trolls have apparently worked to "out" this editor...not probably because they are so much concerned about any disruption, but because they wanted to volate his desire to no longer have his (supposed) real name used. For the record, all this is a revelation to me, and checking Proabivouc's edits, I haven't seen any evidence that he has been acting disruptively, or in violation of any prior arbcom sanction. I suspected that the seeds for this were originally sown off-site.--MONGO 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that so many have collaborated in this manner may alternately be taken as a recognition that the Committee's actions were horribly unfair. Or is that an impossible concept in Wikiland?
The proceedings of the committee were the most vicious attack machine I've ever come across on the web. Perhaps you publish things because you are interested in looking at and considering them, but that's actually a horrible reason to publish anything, isn't it?
"No, of course, we would never think to libel you. What we will do is provide this dedicated space for this notorious attack-only pseudonymous troll to say whatever he likes about you, publish it from that point forward, and gratuitously link to it when we see fit. The content isn't our responsibility, but that of the pseudonymous troll to whom we provided this platform."
Um, no. Are you seriously asking that I should have linked to this junk on my own accord?Proabivouac 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really very strange. I've seen absolutely no links to any attack sites, and the only editor whose edits in respect of it I have reviewed , User:Morven,is absolutely not a sockpuppet. You're not denying the truth of the statement, not denying that you were sidestepping the the arbitration sanction, nobody seems to be disputing that it is right it should be renewed, the only grounds you appear to have for disputing this is the fact that it was publicised somewhere else (and I have no idea where, because I've not even seen that source). Surely it would be better to take it like a man, and let the drama die down? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've completely misunderstood my comments, which were aimed at content subpages of the relevant decision. ArbCom continues to host attacks by a banned pseudonymous user against a private citizen for no obvious purpose. I'm asking that these sections be deleted, as I requested when they were posted to begin with.Proabivouac 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be brief. I am posting here as there is a discussion about some admins who have had knowledge about the issue. Well, yes, i am one of them. I got to know about that on-wiki (via email) just weeks after a RfC i filed against Proabivoauc back on January 2007. Apart from that, i don't recall Pro editing disruptively.

MONGO, i believe you are the only person in this discussion who technically cannot get access to the contents of that RfC. In other words, as Thatcher had mentioned yesterday at Pro talk page answering Tom Harrison, that RfC outcome would have been totally different if people could know who was Pro at that time. Now, i hope all parties get back to work and forget about the fuss. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, as well, was aware of the fact, although not for as long, but I did operate under the assumption that the Arbitration Committee was also clued in to this. It is, however, my understanding that at least one Committee member and one Foundation official were made privy to it. El_C 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate that if this was (otherwise) a problem account, we wouldn't be having this discussion. El_C 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that Pro chasing some banned accounts here (w/ whom he had conflicts) led those account owners to post online the relationship between Pro new and old account. Pro insists on PRIVACY, ATTACKSITE, HARASS defending his case. On the other hand, the ArbCom saw that reseting the terms of the probation is WHATSHOULDBEDONE and that process counts especially in cases such as this. There would have been no further discussion if Pro would have kept it at minimum yesterday. This case is probably a precedent and hope it would never happen again in Wikipedia. It is the trust of people on the project which is at stake here. I believe that's why we are having this discussion here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are previous cases where a user under probation has attempted to discard that account and reincarnate. In all cases of which I am aware, the probation was enforced on the new account, except in one case where the probation period had actually expired before the new account was discovered. However, this is the first case where the original account was the user's real name, raising the privacy objection. Thatcher131 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does BADSITES have to pop up in everything these days? To edit under one's real name is to voluntarily reveal it; if one is to become anonymous again, one must accept responsibility for doing it effectively. Mangoe 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The username policy as it stood upon initial registration in 2004 read, "The best username is typically either your real name…"[20] It doesn't say that now, of course. I agree with that version that, on an ideal Wikipedia, editors would use their real names, state their real credentials, etc. However an ideal Wikipedia would also disallow and delete attacks on editors, just as it would disallow and delete attacks against people who aren't Wikipedia editors.Proabivouac 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...or a longstanding internet pen name" Anyway, would it be realistic for Proabivouac to publicly agree to the extended probation and indicate that he is doing so because there are privacy concerns involved, thereby eliminating the need for public disclosure b/c Proab agrees to the the terms? Could we then delete/oversight the offending diffs, or are things already too far out of the bag?--Chaser - T 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who'd never come across an attack site might have never thought to use a pen name, such that there would have been no longstanding one. If not, this individual would be merely following instructions by registering as he/she did. "Blame yourself for being naive enough to trust us and follow our instructions," is not a very convincing way of shirking responsibility.
Probation only means, don't disrupt the encyclopedia. Everyone should be on permanent probation; people who disrupt the encylopedia shouldn't be welcome here anyhow, and administrators are already free to block disruptive users. Either they're disruptive and should be banned, or they're productive and they shouldn't be. Its only added effect is to stain a username which means more or less depending on how important that name is to you.
To answer your question, Chaser, I don't too much care about what WP says about any pseud, starting with mine. Things get more serious when we identify a pseud with living people, either on or off-wikipedia. If Wikipedia doesn't want my or anyone else's volunteer labor, that's its right, and in my case, its loss. But no part of that decision can justify the publication of attacks against any real person.
If a non-profit enterprise has trouble with an volunteer, disinvite him/her back. Don't create a webpage with his/her legal name, saying how incompetent or otherwise deficient you think he/she is. Don't create a webpage where random people can anonymously write how awful they are. Isn't that just common sense?
Deleting (not just "blanking" which doesn't actually remove any content, but only changes its order of presentation) problematic content about real people is the right move whether Proabivouac is involved here or not, or under what arrangement. It's Wikipedia's right to determine who participates here. No one challenges that. It's not Wikipedia's right, however, to accomplish this in such a way that doesn't include the continued publication of malicious attacks against people. Somehow other organizations manage to accomplish the first while avoiding the other.Proabivouac 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked the Evidence page of the His excellency arbcom case as a courtesy. I am less willing to blank the initial complaint, where the accusations flung around are on a rather lower level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a step in the right direction, for which I thank you. However, Wikipedia should not publish this kind of material at all. Deletion would reduce it to the level of a WP-internal document, which administrators could view as necessary. It is only a button away.Proabivouac 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've already been actively deleting, to the amazing extent of revert-warring against admins who are placing official notices, almost every mention of your original probation, on the grounds that there might be a mention of your former username in there, so non-admins already would need to fish the information out of the history page. If you get this information wiped completely, how exactly are non-administrators supposed to know that you were ever on probation? Normal editors have a part to play in enforcing wikipedia policies by spotting, reverting and reporting violations, something you well know. Your current account is already an apparent attempt to evade probation; one might think that all this link-deletion and wikilawyering is an attempt to hide your past actions from as many eyeballs as possible, so that you could avoid being caught again in future. After all, your original username is all over the wiki in hundreds of places - it's a bit of a coincidence that the instances you're complaining about are only those instances where administrators and arbitrators happen to detail your violations of wikipedia policies. My tuppence worth, to anyone who cares, is that if the consequences of the actions necessary to enforce wikipedia policies happen to be unpleasant for those who intentionally violate the policies, that's just the natural part of the punishment.--Aim Here 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [21][22] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.--Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [23], [24], [25]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.
Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [26] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did recognize that selective quoting is not the best way? Then how about google or google books searches like for example "Lithuanian+nationalist" ? Meanwhile another question remeins open - did someone know the fact, or did he find it on your list and then googled selective? As for evidences - you might wwant to read the Talk:Antanas Baranauskas page - there you'll find plethora of "knowledge" evidences. I did especially like this one "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear. Similarly, currently the article suggests Baranowski (as he called himself) was born in Lithuania, even though he was born in the Russian empire to a Polish family." Quite an amusing read, a good example how someone tries to expand an article using "knowledge". Most fun part is that this so called "knowledge" denies every fact, that does not suit it's beliefs - even Polish encyclopedias, clearly quoting him as "poeta litewski". If you'd read it as a whole, you'll soon find quite a recognizable behavioral pattern. And i do will try to describe it with metaphors, that's your speciality.--Lokyz 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BADSITES / NPA in articles

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

OK, here's a try:
The No Personal Attacks policy, as it clearly states throughout the page, applies to comments, not to articles.
I'm trying to be succinct to avoid confusion, but I could expand it:
The No Personal Attacks policy applies to comments. It cannot be applied to articles as they are not appropriate venues for comment on Wikipedia editors qua editors. External sites and their appropriateness for articles are covered under the Sourcing and Referencing policies.
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough. AFAIK we are supposed to link only to reliable sources (or, at least, I only link to RS), which should preclude Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review. These hives of scum and villainy are hardly reliable sources in any sense of the word: it's hard to think of a valid reason for linking to them in the first place. Even in cases of "Wikipedia Review proves that X really did say Y", if Wikipedia Review is your only source for this, chances are that nobody cares anyway. Moreschi Talk 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Navel-gazing and lotus-eating is inappropriate for encyclopædia articles.
James F. (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA is about Conduct, not about Content. Something applied to user behavior has nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Judge the article on its own bad quality or lack of value, don't try to apply policies or guidelines never intending to be used for article purposes. bastique 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this. Much clearer than what I wrote. :-)
James F. (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, new suggestion from David G., plus some tidying:
WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behaviour have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Judge articles strictly on their content in a disinterested editorial manner; don't try to apply community policies or guidelines not intended for article policies, don't consider one's own opinions of or experiences with the subject of an article.
Input still requested. :-) Will harangue some interested parties.
James F. (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the interested parties will say that they'll provide their input in the context of the new case. Newyorkbrad 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proof will be in the pudding. If ArbCom does not open a case to consider edit warring by various parties on various articles, and only publishes this clarification, will it stop the edit warring? You may want to look at recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. The idea that applying NPA and attack site link removal to article space is "beyond absurd" doesn't seem to have percolated through to the disputants there. Or at Overstock.com either, where the current state of the article is to have obfuscated the name and removed all links to the site that forms a major part of the article, in the name of NPA. Thatcher131 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that "beyond absurd" hasn't percolated down to the little people yet, it's that arguments by assertion aren't very persuasive. Tom Harrison Talk 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Arbcom, it is likely that never once did it occur to them that anyone would take this specific principle (not even a remedy), reinterpret it, stick it in a policy applying to editorial behaviour, and then apply it to article content. Risker 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO were posted in mainspace. They were links to ED in the article on ED, presumably as critically necessary for NPOV there as at Judd Bagley. It seems a bit thin to say now that nobody thought this would be taken to apply to article content when the original ruling applied to article content. Tom Harrison Talk 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article has long since been deleted, but I will certainly take your word for it, Tom. You may well be right that Arbcom was thinking in the particular case of ED that it would apply to article space. At the same time, the notability of the subject was hardly on the same line as Michael Moore, where links to his home page were removed because they were an "attack site." Deleting the ED article was not particularly unreasonable, with or without the links present. I can't imagine developing consensus to delete the Michael Moore article, and the lack of a link to his website would indeed be poor editorial judgment. Risker 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you think deciding that "all parties erred, none are chastised" in two months' time will fix that problem?
James F. (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Let's see what happens now. Thatcher131 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question though, would linking to an attack site possibly considered to be a BLP vio? Kwsn(Ni!) 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question - recent changes to the WP:BLP policy suggest that anything relating to a living person on any page anywhere in the encyclopedia that could possibly be construed as a BLP violation may be removed at any time. Risker 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't have anything to do with this issue. The reason antisocialmedia.net was obfuscated in Overstock.com is not that it was an attack on Overstock.com, it was that it contained attacks on Wikipedia editors. Use of sources and links in articles is governed by policies like use reliable sources. WP:NPA is only supposed to govern how editors interact with one another. When one editor says to another editor, "You suck and I can prove it because somewebsite says so [link]" that's a personal attack. Putting michaelmoore.com or donmurphy.com as external links in the articles about those people is not a personal attack by one editor on another editor, no matter what the content of the web site is. Thatcher131 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up to a point. Michaelmoore.com and donmurphy.net are both authoritative sources about notable individuals, neither of them serves primarily to attack. Other sites, with antisocialmedia being a particularly vivid example, but also including wikipediareview and encyclopedia dramatica, have absolutely no redeeming encyclopaedic merit; none of them has anything that we could actually use in an article, so it's much harder to see how any link to them could be valid anywhere. We had a problem in Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about links to an attack blog run by someone in her constituency, it took some time to get that out. That is the kind of situation covered by BLP. ASM is more of a grey area, in that it doesn't attack any article subject, but it is a site which exists primarily to pursue a vendetta, and it does so in a particularly nasty way. There is pretty much nothing we can learn of value by studying Bagley's critique, since his beef is basically that he was not allowed to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:NPOV and this is not fixable. Bagley is looking to create dissent and drama, and succeeding admirably. His complaint is, and always was, baseless; as Fred said to him, others may have committed minor sins, but he has committed major sins in retaliation; I'd add that he has committed these sins with entirely base motives. We have a guideline that says not to bring external disputes to Wikipedia. We should not ignore those on the losing side of a dispute who then choose to take it off Wikipedia in an attempt to end-run around policy. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the bigger problem with ASM is that omitting the site's name is conspicuous, since every citation names it. And as far as "bringing external disputes to Wikipedia", that is exactly the problem with the whole BADSITES non-policy. Without it, we say "Bagley made this site ASM with attacks on WP-ites as part of this larger dispute," and be done with it. What we are getting instead is that BADSITES is being used as a reason/excuse/pretext (depending on how much "good faith" rope you are willing to grant) to control the content of Wikipedia based upon Bagley's attacks. The Anne Milton case has merits as a parallel, but I notice that in her case the source does not name the site. The question of who was behind the blog in her case also doesn't seem to have become a matter of note, whereas in the ASM/Bagley case the importance of the site is precisely that Bagley is behind it. And for those who have their scorecards out, ASM plays off an existing dispute between factors on Wikipedia and various people who have been expelled from here over a particular person who is involved in the disputes around overstock.com and who may or may not be a Wikipedia editor who is participating in these discussions as if he were not an involved party. Just to make things worse, the WR/ED people have a bee in their bonnet about this guy's identity, and if memory serves me, one of the players on WR is also involved in the same disputes that overstock.com is stirring up.
There is clearly room to discuss how much emphasis is placed upon all these connections, especially when we are talking article space. The issue that I see, however, is that we keep running the risk here of sacrificing accurate reportage of the material in order to keep the "external disputes" out, because the disputes aren't really entirely external now. Putting us in the position of suyppressing cited material in order to protect our own is putting us in the position of risking another black mark on our reputation. If someone else is able to demonstrate that certain key ASM allegations are correct, the business press will be able to twig us as (perhaps unwitting) participants in someone's illegitimate financial maneuvering. We need to strike a middle course here, between pretending the allegations don't exist and appearing to endorse them. It seems to me that this course is best followed by naming Bagley (which I think has to be done no matter what), naming the site, and sketching out who (real world) is being attacked wihtout going into detail about what's claimed about that persons' Wikipedia activity. And this all has to be set within the context of Overstock.com's larger securities issues. We surely don't have to repeat the allegations, and there's no way at all that we can't leave enough of a trail for people to find those allegations. Mangoe 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not apply in this circumstance, as BLP is just a guideline that requires NPOV to be followed more strictly in certain circumstances.
Using sources is required by NPOV. Failing to mention a source, or, worse, failing to use it, would be a violation of NPOV. Claiming that a source is an "attack site" is a suggestion that it fails to meet the concept embodied in "use reliable sources" and other such guidelines; I has nothing to do with personal attacks on contributors, as that is a guideline for the behaviour of editors in engaging in comment on- and off-wiki, not in writing content.
James F. (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WP:BLP applies to all content referring to living individuals. Actually, not censored notwithstanding, I would say it is inappropriate to link to sites which prominently attack people, whether editors or not; hate speech sites, for example. But that's just me. Here, we have an editor who feels personally attacked by the presence of the links. We should be sensitive to that, and not make statements of faith that we should link For Great Justice or something, we really need to be more nuanced than that. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does BLP apply to me? Does it apply outside the article space? Tom Harrison Talk 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether some wikijargon applies to published attacks on article subjects, contributors or both is sort of beside the point. BLP exists because 1) we (at least some of us) are trying to take some responsibility for what we publish 2) neither the foundation nor any contributors can see any benefit in being involved in litigation by the subjects of the articles we publish. I can't see why those concerns wouldn't be equally applicable to attacks on any other living person from the english Wikipedia.Proabivouac 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James, you should definitely not bother opening a case if all you're going to do is say, "everyone messed up, no one gets punished." However, don't expect a mere clarification to carry much weight. [27] [28] Thatcher131 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want such a ruling, but that is what is likely to come out of this, as all ArbCom-watchers will known. And given how our words are twisted to the purposes of those that use them, will there really be any great merit in seemingly re-writing the previous ruling. Clarifications are meant to have the same "weight" as any other official decision from the Committee.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle, James F.; however, this interpretation of WP:BLP (as well as WP:HARASS) has already been used in user space, archived pages, RFAR archives, other project space, and throughout article space (including talk) to remove perceived attacks against WP editors. I don't think a clarification of the previous case is going to be sufficient to put paid to such practices, although certainly such an addition to the meta policy is important and valuable. Risker 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me an excellent point - even under the "it doesn't apply to the article space" clarifications, discussion of these links becomes difficult. "Should we mention antisocialmedia.net by name" and "Should we mention the site by name" are two very different questions, as the latter cannot be answered by anyone not already familiar with the situation. This makes things like RFC and requests for attention very difficult in these situations.
To my mind, the problem is that NPA is a policy that, at its core, is designed to attack bad faith behavior. The inclusion of the attack sites material changes it so that it now attacks good faith behavior. But it is not equipped to do that, nor should it - good faith behavior should virtually never be reverted on sight. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are still difficulties in modifying our policies so that those unable to follow the most important - use common sense - are still able to contribute. I'm not sure that that is an efficient or deseriable use of our time, however. (Or, in brief, discussion of valid contributions to an article are always appropriate on said article's talk page. If you don't like it, don't view it.)
On the larger point, I think Phil has it just right here: the NPA behavioural rule does indeed apply to situations where you're already assuming bad faith, and that that isn't appropriate as a rule to apply to editing at large.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate to say it was used in most of those places to claim that those links were attacks. I like the general drift of this clarification, but even if articles themselves are placed off-limits, there's still the problem that BADSITES has been invoked to cripple discussion of the sites in question by censoring citations to material on the sites. Presumably it could also be invoked to (for instance) keep Don Murphy's site from being referred to in any discussion context.
The thing that is causing all the disruption is the imputation that any link to a site where there is an "attack" (whatever that might be) is thus also an attack. So someone writes an article on Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who is emphatically notable) and includes the obvious extern link to her site. Time passes, and in the blog there she makes a post about Wikipedia, and down in the comments, someone names an editor here. So all of a sudden, the link is ex post facto an attack. Well, that's just nonsense. All that matters is the context in which a link occurs, and not the link itself. Mangoe 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, such an application of any rules would be nonsense on stilts.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • That's not a "wikipedia criticism site" by any realistic or sensible definition of the term. The site operator's sole criticism of Wikipedia is that it would not let him pursue his Holy Crusade, and I blacklisted the link (on en: only, not in the main spam blacklist, although I am a meta sysop) because it is not used in mainspace but was being used in project and user space in a way that was causing real distress and harassment to a long-standing editor. It is very hard to think of an analogy without violating Godwin's Law; we are under absolutely no obligation to take seriously, still less facilitate, the delusional outpourings of sociopaths. But don't worry, Dan, Viridae immediately removed it, so you're free to link to yet another pile of fetid excreta masquerading as critique. These are not "so-called" attack sites, they are attack sites. There is a huge difference between something like Wikitruth which at least tries to be fair some of the time, and has some kind of commitment to making Wikipedia better, and ASM, which exists solely to pursue one man's mission to edit in violation our core policies. If you thik Bagley wants to make Wikipedia better, then you are deluded. He wants to make Wikipedia support his agenda, and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a straw man argument to claim that I'm saying that this guy is trying to make Wikipedia better, since I've never claimed any such thing (though we all must be careful about publicly imputing derogatory motives to a living person, under BLP and NPA and AGF... even banned editors retain a right not to be unnecessarily attacked). My arguments are more along the lines of (1) Even if somebody is doing someting for totally biased and self-serving motives... even if he's a completely evil person... that doesn't mean that everything in their line of argument is wrong. Sometimes the "bad guys" serve a useful role in their ability to find and publicize things that the "good guys" are doing wrong, which others on the "good" team will be inclined to shove under the rug out of personal and team loyalty. Perhaps Superman really needs a Lex Luthor around, else his unchecked power will eventually get to his head and be abused (there have actually been several stories in the comics along those lines). Things the "bad guys" say certainly need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, and independently verified before any action is taken, but that isn't the same as automatically dismissing and suppressing them. (2) And if the attacks are totally without merit and truth, then why be afraid of them? Best to confront and refute them openly, or just ignore them, but not give the appearance of trying to cover something up. *Dan T.* 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, everything in his line of argument is wrong. Add to that his baseless and flagrant attempts to violate privacy, his promotion of discredited conspiracy theories and other general lunacy, and you have a site which has absolutely no redeeming merits whatsoever. Let's be absolutely clear here: there is no way that Bagley improves Wikipedia. There is no way that his site improves Wikipedia. There is no way that linking to his site improves Wikipedia. Nobody is afraid of his attacks, but they are distressing to the person attacked. Again, it is hard to reply without invoking Godwin's Law. Would you say that the self-evident fatuity of anti-semitic polemic means it's fine to link it even though it offends Jewish editors? We should not aid and abet the likes of Bagley in pursuing their tawdry and selfish campaigns. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if there ought to be a modern version of Godwin's Law that applies to comparisons to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but one should note that our article on that guy includes a link to his infamous videos. It's hard to get more evil than that. There are probably 9/11 widows offended by that, but we don't let that override the need of people to be fully informed, including about what the "bad guys" are saying. *Dan T.* 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting essay on karma vs. image in a Google-related blog states that one of the differences is that karma is often improved by outside criticism, while image is often hurt by outside criticism. It would appear that various people involved in Wikipedia-related debates are more concerned with image than karma, including editors who are hyper about how they're being hurt by "attack sites", as well as bio subjects demanding veto power over having an article about them because they regard this as inherently harmful. *Dan T.* 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re; "Would you say that the self-evident fatuity of anti-semitic polemic means it's fine to link it even though it offends Jewish editors?" You mean, like this (I presume that there is anti-semitic rhetoric there, I don't care to taint myself by looking)? There is enough good policy to disallow linking where there is no useful purpose for an encyclopedic article, but BADSITES derived NPA language sets a different standard to elsewhere Wikipedia content, as my example shows. Are Jewish (or any other potentially discriminated grouping) editors more worthy of consideration than Jewish (or any other.. etc.) readers? The MONGO case originally referred to the linking to sites, containing material attacking an individual editor, for the purpose of harassing said editor, not a group(ing). LessHeard vanU 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some resolution here?

The whole BADSITES thing seems to be in a state of supreme contradiction. The attempt to open a case seems to have stalled because of this request for clarification. This request seems to have stalled because the situation w.r.t. overstock.com and antisocialmedia and Judd Bagley has pushed the discussion into new territory. Meanwhile ArbCom (with the advice of some unnamed others) has gone off and simply blocked linking to ASM.net.

I'm not as bent about the latter blockage as some are, because I can understand not wanting to have to police the place to keep out what in this case clearly are attacks. But besides all the questionable implications of doing it, the "clarification" seems to be: "Well, if ArbCom takes a sufficient dislike to a site, they can unilaterally block it." This is not an improvement in clarity. BADSITES has always wavered between a "policy" delivered by ArbCom and a non-policy rejected on two attempts already; now we have some unstated version of it being acted on without any community consensus. Nobody knows what the rules are, and meanwhile it continues to be a disruption, particularly in this case where the offending website isn't just an external link, but is named as content.

Can we get some resolution here, or at least some progress in that direction? Mangoe 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simply really, if a site is really nasty you should not link to it. If it is a site that occasionally has negative material, you should simply avoid the negative material. It's kind of like the difference between a fart and and a pile of shit. If there is real harm being done, avoid it completely. Fred Bauder 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see, that doesn't leave us with any resolution other than to have a fight every time someone points to a site that might, somewhere in its bowels, do "harm". If real harm is being done, the victim has recourse to the courts, and does not need our assistance. Bagley is, after all, named as author of the site in question, and is thus available to be sued. What we have inevitably talked about here is hypothetical harm. And often enough, it may not be the kind of "harm" that constitutes a tort: after all, it isn't libel if it's true.
And as has been said before here, "Wikipedia is not censored." Nastiness by itself isn't an criteria for exclusion. Therefore trying to exclude things on the ground of simple nastiness is going to provoke arguments, because it isn't simple. Every "simple" argument that has come up here in defense of exclusion has been poked full of holes, when it wasn't just bald misrepresentation of the facts. Whenever protecting people has come to the fore of all other principles, it has turned into a cover for people who are potentially doing something wrong to protect them from being criticized for it.
And not to pick on you, Fred, but single statements by ArbCom members or admins have simply served to fan the flames, because nobody feels particularly bound by them. They're just another thing to argue about. Mangoe 11:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, some people have understood that decision in the way you mean from the very beginning. Others have tried to drastically expand it (the failed BADSITES proposal and the changes snuck into NPA) and apply it to article space. What remains to be seen is whether this clarification will stop the edit warring. Thatcher131 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody snuck in anything (though it would be cool to have an 'insert' button to match 'delete'). And the arbcom findings applied to article space - links to ED in the article about ED. Tom Harrison Talk 11:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're rewriting history, since the ED article was already deleted at the time that decision was made, and most people feel that, should it ever be recreated (and some argue that it's notable enough for that, while others disagree) it ought to have a link to the site as is normal practice to link to sites on articles about them. My impression is that the decision pertained to "trolls" spamming links to the site in inappropriate places following the deletion of the article that would be the one legitimate place to put it. At any rate, the Arbcom lacks the power to make policy or make content decisions regarding articles. *Dan T.* 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoth Fred: "It's pretty simply really, if a site is really nasty you should not link to it."
No. Wikipedia links to neo-nazi sites. It links to radical Islamic sites. It links to some of the nastiest sites in existence. And it should. We're a neutral encyclopedia, not the arbitrators of moral rectitude. We can't accurately report on a subject without giving information about what they believe and do. Linking to sites they create and maintain is one of the clearest and most direct ways of doing so... which is why our link guidelines hold that we should do so.
If a link is appropriate under our standards for reliable source and notability or external links then it can and should be included... regardless of how 'nasty' subjective opinions hold the site to be. If a link to a site is needed to demonstrate some valid point in discussion then it should be included.
We already have policies to cover all of this. Links which are posted solely to insult some user rather than because they are relevant to the article/discussion are personal attacks and can be treated as such (warnings and blocks - possibly removal, though 'remove personal attacks' has always been controversial and this new 'remove links to attack sites' application of it no less so).
If Kim Jong-il signed up for a Wikipedia account we wouldn't suddenly remove all references to criticisms of him. We wouldn't ban all links to sites which engaged in 'attacks' upon him. We wouldn't ban links to criticism of him from discussion on talk pages. Rather, we would continue to apply our requirements that any criticism and links be to reliable sources, that the information included be notable, and that this user be treated with civility and not subject to personal attacks (well, in theory, we'd do that last). There is no need for any sort of 'new' procedure for handling these issues... and every effort to construct one has been, and will be, used as a wedge in efforts to change the way our core principles are applied. --CBD 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent from the voluminous commentary that the original ArbCom ruling allowed for some extremely expansive interpretation. If we can all settle on the clarification that "linking to attacks as a kind of trolling or harassment is prohibited", or similar language, then I think this could be settled quickly. But we need some consensus expressed from ArbCom one way or the other. Right now it seems that we're getting a variety of inconsistent personal opinions. Mangoe 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the BADSITES policy proposal only because my definition of what a BADSITE is is one that routinely engages in the "outting" of our contributors who wish to remain anonymous. We cannot regulate what other sites have posted, but we can work to protect our editors from potential real life harm by not aiding in the dispersal of their real life identity by linking to such a site. If one of these "BADSITES" has relevent information that might be needed by arbcom, then it can always be emailed to them. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not a suppression of criticism, even if it is invalid, but protection of our editor's right to privacy.--MONGO 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us back to the perennial question: is this right to privacy absolute? Taken in the large, it is not, and indeed, it is nonexistent. If someone figures out who a Wikipedia editor is, and publishes his conclusion, he has the right to do so. It may be immoral (by whatever standard), but law and rule cannot address that.
Therefore whatever protection we can offer is limited, and the case of ASM.net illustrates just how limited it is. Anyone who comes across the cited sources is told where to find the attacks that most surely do exist on that site, so omission of the site's name in the article is banking on readers not looking at the cited work. Putting the name in but not hotlinking it is banking on them not typing the URL in themselves.
We can't put editor's masks back on if they fall off. I understand the concern over one editor taking advantage of such a site to put in an indirect attack upon another, but I doubt whether going beyond that is more important than writing an accurate, unbowdlerized, comprehensive encyclopedia. Mangoe 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... if real life were like the comic books, then it might be possible to regain anonymity... if somebody discovers that Superman is Clark Kent and tells a whole crowd of people, he can still resort to super-hypnosis, or get an amnesia ray from his Fortress of Solitude, or get his Justice League friends to help pull off an elaborate super-hoax that has the public thinking that the earlier revelation was wrong... or whatever other plot twist the writers might have. The real world isn't quite the same. *Dan T.* 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors have the right to edit anonymously if they wish. If their real life identity is "discovered" by people on other websites and that is linked here against their wishes, then we are violating their right to privacy. If editors here previously posted their real life identity or information which led them to having their real identities becoming discovered, and they then change their information provided to protect them from being exposed, we should do what we can to honor their wishes to not aide and abet other websites that do not care about their current desires to edit anonymously.--MONGO 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not to the point of restricting WP's ability to link to a source for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. If the information is available on the internet somewhere there is no point, IMO, in lessening WP's "right" to provide informative links simply to reduce the potential of accessing some information that could be found anyway. Primarily, WP is an encyclopedia first and an (anonymous) editing grouping some way behind. LessHeard vanU 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some websites that do little other than provide harassment fodder and as such, I highly doubt the exclusion of these extremely few websites is going to reduce our ability to be encyclopedic.--MONGO 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some seem to think Wikipedia should be renamed "Editors Anonymous", since it serves as a support group for the obsessive-compulsive. *Dan T.* 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't aide and abet the efforts of other sites to "out" our contibutors.--MONGO 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, WP never has... so, how does not being able to link to a site for the purposes of improving the encyclopedia effect that? LessHeard vanU 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't aid and abet the Aryan Nations' goals of white supremacy, but that doesn't stop us from linking to their homepage; the idea that acknowledging the existence of harassment is the same as supporting it is in direct opposition to the goal of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's possible for bad things to be notable, or for a Web site where bad things happen to be notable for other reasons. ShaleZero 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan T., I think we can all agree that obsession is bad. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This rather abstracted talk about whether we can do without the attack sites and whether or not we should "aid[e] and abet" the attackers has become pretty much detached from reality. I do not think that the right to anonymity here is absolute, but in any case, as I seem to find myself repeating, we can't make people anonymous again once their identities have been revealed. Difference of opinion over how hard we can make it to find these attacks never seems to be resolved. But in any case, reality has outstripped the MONGO decision. It was one thing when people linked to these sites to torment others; nobody disagrees that this ought to stopped. When we went from there to other Wikipedia criticism on the same sites, it at least could be argued that such criticism was worthless, though in practice you and others edit warred to prevent contrary evidence from being presented. But then we move on to other sites which happened to have one or two revelations of identity buried in a mass of other material; and now we have a site whose attacks on editors are themselves noteworthy. I don't see how we can avoid making distinctions among these cases. Mangoe 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it detached from reality? Interesting. No, there is no reason to link to websites that "out" our contributors against their wishes. We now have a website whose attacks on our contributors is noteworthy? How so? If it is "outting" anyone here against their wishes, but is something arbcom needs to make a decison, then it can be emailed to them...and that makes it unnecessary to link directly to it.--MONGO 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: is it your argument that there is no reason to link to Michael Moore's official site in our article about Michael Moore? Should we, or should we not link to Patrick Nielsen Hayden's official site in our article on Patrick Nielsen Hayden? In a more recently contentious matter, how would you suggest administering the external links section of Don Murphy? The relevant policy seems pretty clear that, in general, official sites of people or organizations covered in articles ought to be linked from those articles. JavaTenor 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present, I see no evidence any of the sites you mention is engaged in the effort to "out" our contributors. Moore's site was previously doing this and the webmaster there had links that took one directly to two open editing windows on our site, which appeared to be an invitation to vandalize. Morton devonshire and I were singled out by a well known conspiracy theorist [29], but I didn't delete links to his website since he wasn't "outting" either of us.--MONGO 05:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if that activity was still going on at www.michaelmoore.com, you would have us delete links to it, regardless of notability or its relevance to a notable subject?ShaleZero 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

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

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

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

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

Motions in prior cases

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


Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

See also discussion above. As there are currently 10 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.
Support:
  1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=157902595"