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

Statement by SoftPaleColors

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Mushroom

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

Yeah, right. Let me recap this:

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

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

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

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

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific

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

With that said;

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

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

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

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

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

Provocations

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

Nonfeasance

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

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

What to do

Perhaps -

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

My two cents, plus significant inflation.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

You write:

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

My point is: you should.

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

Georgewilliamherbert 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment by uninvolved party Pavel Vozenilek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of a page which had been temporarily restored as evidence

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

Statement by Crazyswordsman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement By TawneeLynne

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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

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

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

Linking ban question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I came here to ask the same thing. When it says: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances," does it mean no live links are allowed, or no links at all? SlimVirgin 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED

Moved from RFAr main page:

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

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

Policy and this page

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

Request for clarification on linking to attack sites

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by arbitrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the attempt vs. the act of publishing private information

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

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

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

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

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

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

We still have a clarification problem

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

It was clarified above by an arbitrator who worked on the case: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." SlimVirgin 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you need clarification when what they themselves ruled on is unambiguous? Which part of the following needs to be clarified or interpreted? "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." SlimVirgin 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is such a strange discussion. The ArbCom ruling is clear. The Arbitration Committee voted on it and passed it. It says: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." I have to ask again: which part of it is unclear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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