Revision as of 06:53, 17 September 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

"No personal attacks" in articles

1) Our no personal attacks policy applies to personal attacks on Misplaced Pages, and does not extend to content disputes in the article namespace.

1.1) Our no personal attacks policy applies to personal attacks on Misplaced Pages, and does not extend to good-faith content disputes in the article namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. *Dan T.* 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed The bottom line: "on Misplaced Pages" means on Misplaced Pages, including article nams-spaces. This principal is a blatant attempt to use ArbCom to nullify policy. More detailed comment: this simply creates a huge loophole in our NPA policy that enables editors to accomplish in articles what they cannot on talk pages. WP:BLP already provides a precedent for applying the values of NPA to articles themselves. Here we are just going one step furthe to apply this to mention of living persons in other articles besides their own biographies. Phil Sandifer and David Gerard and others have claimed that we must defend NPOV at all costs and that NPOV trumps NPA in all cases. This is not true. It is crucial to note that NPOV is not merely a content policy, it is a personal behavior policy too - it explicitly explains that its purpose is to provide an environment in which diverse editors can work together even when they hold antagonistic views. In this aspect of NPOV, NPOV and NPA are partners and not in opposition. NPOV itself provides its own threshold for inclusion: notability. I would argue that a criticism of a person must be a notable view for NPOV to justify its inclusion in an article. Criticisms of Essjay reported in the mainstream press are an example of criticisms I would accept NPOV as requiring us to include ... but even those criticisms were not "personal attacks." I have yet to see any personal attack against a Misplaced Pages editor that rises to any standard of notability. To allow personal attacks against editors in article pages would defeat the purpose of NPOV, which is to promote a community of people of divergent views who can work together to create a quality encyclopedia. It turns NPOV into a weapon against the encyclopedia - and turns the encyclopedia into a tawdry tabloid. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The absence of this provision creates a huge loophole where over-sensitive people can claim that links that have no attacking intent whatsoever, such as links to the official site of a person or company included on the article about them, or links to non-attacking articles that happen to be in the same domain as an attack, are "attacks" and need to be vigorously removed. This proposal puts a stop to such overreaction. *Dan T.* 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your labeling editors "over sensitive" is ad hominem and a sign of bad faith. If you happen to get into an edit conflict with someone it doesn't matter whether they are oversensitive or insensitive - what matters is the quality of the edit and its compliance with policy. Now if you happen to get into an edit war with someone who is clearly hyper-sensitive, I advise you to take it through the regular dispute resolution process. But you cannot use this forum or policy as a way to ban some blanket category of "over-sensitive" people. That violates the spirit of NPOV which demands that we be inclusive of points of view, and the correlary policy, AGF without which NPOV would not function. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what a "good faith content dispute is?" Isn't the accusation that one is making or supporting a personal attack in efect accusing one of acting in bad faith? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Does accusing somebody of something automatically make it so? *Dan T.* 14:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You endorse the principle so I assume you know what it means - therefore, you should be able to answer my question. I asked it in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation: What about 'good faith content dispute' needs explaining? See Assume good faith. In short, if there is a reasonable explanation for why someone would think that a link is beneficial that should be the default assumption of why they added it... not that they are engaging in nefarious skullduggery to lure unsuspecting users to an evil website where they may be corrupted by hidden attacks against all that is good and righteous and Wikiesque. :] --CBD 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I would say this: although an editor may add a link in good faith, if the link is to a cite that directly attacks an editor of Misplaced Pages, the good faith - or likely absense of it - of the person(s) administring or posting to the linked cite is in question and relevant. I say this only in regard to comments that directly attack Misplaced Pages editors. regardless of the intentions of the Misplaced Pages editor who adds the link, by so doing a statement addressed by one person to or about a Misplaced Pages editor is entered into the article. That is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support the sentiment, with minor tweak that NPA doesn't apply to "Good Faith" content disputes. Obviously, somebody could just vandalize an article, inserting a totally irrelevant personal attack into a completely random page, and I think that, an obviously bad faith edit, would violate NPA. But the general sentiment is good. --Alecmconroy 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, proposed 1.1. Melsaran (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks applies to all interactions between Misplaced Pages editors. A good faith comment during a dispute is not a personal attack, and would not be interpreted as such, so why would we need to "clarify" this? A personal attack is just that: an attack on the person. It's not acceptable whatever the context. We don't need to legislate Clue, if someone is behaving like a dick then we can quietly point it out to them, if they don't learn or are intent on pursuing ad-hominem arguments then we simply block them. I really can't see the purpose of this principle as worded under 1 or 1.1, neither seems to me to reflect anything relevant to this case. -Guy (Help!) 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd think 'the purpose of this principle' was obviously to repudiate and stop the blocks which have been made for 'personal attacks' which were clearly nothing of the sort. --CBD 09:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that doesn't make sense. The principle refers specifically to personal attacks. Now you are saying they are not personal attacks. Which is it? The principle says personal attacks so it must be referring to personal attacks. If a statement is not a personal attack then this principle doesn't even apply. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... no, the principle (both versions) is clearly stating that attempts to improve articles are NOT personal attacks. --CBD 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is never allowed, even if an editor thinks it is an improvement. It sounds like what you are asying is that these do not really constitute personal attacks. And if they are not personal attacks, there is no need to discuss the NPA policy as it does not apply. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The NPA nutshell specifies "comment on content, not on the contributor" which seems to infer that NPA does not refer to article content. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but some people are citing NPA as a justification for removing external links in articles. Melsaran (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing two distinctions: comment versus commentator, and talk page versus article page. The policy in a nutshell employs the first distinction. It does not refer to the second distinction. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

2) The primary intent of principle 3 in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO was to prevent harassment. Evaluation of the posting of links should be viewed in the context of the likely intent of linking, the overall tone and content of the site, the context, and whether the link is validly supporting encyclopaedic content as a verifiably reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; may need some context though, for people unfamiliar with the ED arbitration. Maybe a link to the "original ruling". Melsaran (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sorted. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with some, but not all. The "likely intent of linking" is relevant when deciding whether or not to block and editor. The MONGO ruling said that "Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking" — an extremely wise precaution. However, if some stalking site gets hold of my home address and someone decides to post the link on my talk page (instead of using private email) in order to "inform me about it", I expect my friends and any responsible user or administrator to remove it immediately, without regard to whether the person who posted it was an idiot or a troll. ElinorD (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know what you mean - but the likely intent of posting that link would be harassment. OK, calls for speculation, but WP:NOT moot court, we're supposed to work on Clue not strictly legalistic interpretation. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• That comment is a bit of a straw man... people have traditionally been given great deference in deciding what content is appropriate on their own talk pages, so no specific policy is needed to delete something you find bothersome there (or to let your friends do it for you). Anyway, I've never noticed any home addresses or phone numbers on the sites that are generally cited as "attack sites" around here (no, I'm not asking for anybody to post links to cases where they've actually published such things, if any!) *Dan T.* 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don Murphy's forums posted the names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least two editors, and one of them was me. I am sure I remember links to this being posted on Misplaced Pages, but speedily removed. Doesn't matter if they were, as links to threads on Murphy's forums undoubtedly have been linked. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• And people then went beyond this to try to remove all links to anything in his site, including the link to it as his official site on the article about him... and this didn't fly. This provision attempts to codify this sensible distinction. *Dan T.* 12:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Dan, I have seen an editor's supposed home address and phone number on two attack sites, and a work phone number on a third one. I don't intend to say which sites they were. I'm quite willing to email the information to the committee. And as for being a straw man argument, I have seen people in favour of allowing links using that very argument (the supposed need to inform an editor of something published about him) as a reason to justify allowing them. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• You obviously didn't find this information via a Misplaced Pages link, so tThe ability to acquire these details are not hindered by the banning of such links. I suppose that the response is that mention of the site names provides a means, but this disregards the potential benefit of being able to link to a site for other purposes. LessHeard vanU 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I "obviously didn't find this information via a Misplaced Pages link". I can't see how that can be obvious, especially since in all three cases, I did find it from a Misplaced Pages link. ElinorD (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• A direct link from WP to the information? Or a link from WP to the site hosting the content, which after further investigation revealed the information? I have, in any case, struck my earlier assertion pending clarification. LessHeard vanU 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not actually that relevant. If a site has content which outs or harasses an editor, there should be a presumption against linking; actually it is always the responsibility of those proposing a link in article space to gain consensus for its inclusion, if it is disputed, and in meta-debate any good faith removal a link to a site which contains outing or harassment should be respected unless there is a compelling reason to link. Where the debate centres around the link itself, there will always be friction, of course. In such cases, arguments from principle ("Never link to attack sites!" / "BADSITES is rejected, link it!") are both wrong. Every link should be considered on its merits, and with regard to the likely damage, the degree of offence caused to our attacked editors, and the motives of the people creating the content. Posting links to Bagley's blog is simply wrong. Not because of BADSITES but because it is enabling a banned troll. We should not link to the ravings of a rebuffed POV-pusher any more than we should allow him to abuse his Talk page to attack people - the correct response is "go away". Guy (Help!) 14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• To me this reaches to the rotten core of the proposed BADSITES policy, and why I disagree in the principle of banning links to sites that has or had hosted attack material; whatever Bagley's blog has or does contain should not limit WP's ability to be able to link to a specific part of it in some future scenario where it is both prudent and desirous to do so. The ability to then locate to less savoury content is a regrettable but necessary evil. In the meanwhile the existing policies are sufficient to disable to linking to the personal attack material. LessHeard vanU 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• The strawman part is the idea that we need a categorical ban on the material to allow people to remove it from their own talk pages or to specify what material others can remove. They already have that prerogative and no one is calling for its elimination. ShaleZero 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are by definition bad faith

3) Personal attacks on other contributors are, by definition, made in bad faith. Our policy banning personal attacks does not extend to good-faith efforts, however misguided, to improve Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this actually makes the needed distinction perfectly - it's the line between "lulz Admin X is really named George" and "Hey, I just saw this link on Slashdot and it seems kinda problematic. What's up?" And, for that matter, between "Admin X is ghey (link to ASM)" and "Judd Bagley administers the website antisocialmedia.net (link)." Phil Sandifer 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems pretty reasonable. *Dan T.* 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. I also agree this makes the distinction perfectly. This would restore the whole MONGO / BADSITES issue back to its original legitimate purpose: to stop malicious, intentionally cruel, bad-faith harassments--- not to inadvertantly chill good-faith attempts to improve the project. --Alecmconroy 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Good faith begats good faith. LessHeard vanU 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4) Links and references to off-site harassment of Misplaced Pages editors may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: Why should what we include in an article depend on whether the content involves a Misplaced Pages editor or not? Paul August ☎ 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. This acknowledges that editors have an express right, but not an obligation, to remove references to off-site attacks. Whether they do so or not would be dealt with on an individual basis. --Mantanmoreland 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal specifically mentions "Misplaced Pages editors". My question is why? You say it is meant to recognize the right "to remove references to off-site attacks". I presume you mean off-site attacks of Misplaced Pages editors. So my question is what is the argument for why we should treat Misplaced Pages editors any differently than any other person in this regard? Paul August ☎ 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I agree with you, I proposed 4.1 as an alternative. We should not link to harassment sites whoever the victim is, unless we have a really good reason. Better to document the harassment form secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this strikes a balance between linking to off-site harassment and the WP:NPOV concerns that have been raised. I think this would be particularly valuable in situations such as the one we are facing here, in which a corporate officer sets up a website one of whose aims is to harass Misplaced Pages editors in furtherance of his employer's perceived interests. It's a good general principle, but it applies in this case which involves a very unique website.--Mantanmoreland 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We might say 'should' instead of 'may.' I'm dubious about crafting general policy to accommodate unique cases. Those are better handled by sensibly applying and ignoring existing rules. Tom Harrison 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is too weak here. I suggest "if doing so does not affect the quality of the article," and have proposed as much below. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I oppose this; making any consideration related to whether Wikipedians feel "harrassed" by something be a part of the editorial process at all is inherently non-neutral, as it's giving the feelings of Wikipedians special status. Editorial decisions should be made based on editorial considerations, period. Links added for good-faith encyclopedic purposes should never be treated as if they were harrassment or personal attacks. *Dan T.* 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Having ones violation of policy, guidelines, rules, law of the land, and other dubious practices being linked to off-wiki may indeed have an editor feeling "harrassed", but it is still legitimate comment. LessHeard vanU 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment In view of the opinions stated regarding the wording above and the lack of responses to the refined wordings suggested below, it may be that the term harassment is too vague (per Amarkov below) to allow debate to develop? I still oppose on the basis of "harassment" LessHeard vanU 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely oppose, per dan. Viridae 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As worded, oppose; "harassment" is to vague. There are, however, some cases where harassment of editors should be removed, even without a clear editorial reason to do so. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. "References to" harassment? Now you're not even talking about links and sourcing - you're talking about scrubbing the content of articles. ShaleZero 06:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support With one caveat: such sites must have achieved a reasonable level of notability which is already a requirement for NPOV. In my experience, no attack-site directed against Wikipedians is notable except to those people who like attack sites, which really is a fringe group of Misplaced Pages readers. I consider a link to an attack site to be a form of personal attack. NPA is clear: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages" - anywhere means anywhere. I have yet to see any =cogent explanation of why it is important to name attack sites in an article and provide a link to them. Never. They are gratuitous, and to insist on including reference to an attack site gratuitously is to me evidence of bad faith. I have yet to see any example where adding such reference/link is at all important to making Misplaced Pages a good encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The group who wants to suppress all mention of so-called "attack sites" is also a fringe group. I think a "reasonable person principle" should be applied where something is termed a personal attack when a reasonable person would perceive it as such, not solely on the subjective feelings of anybody who chooses to declare some broad category of things as "attacks". Could somebody who was traumatized as a child by being nearly crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas in a freak farming accident insist that any use of the word "rutabaga", even in the article on this vegetable, was an attack on him/her? Insisting that all links and mentions of a particular site, even if done without specific reference to a particular person, are "attacks" is such an overreaction. *Dan T.* 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Our focus should be on "creating the best encyclopedia article possible". This policy would shift the focus to "creating the least objectionable encyclopedia article possible, so long as it doesn't actually violate NPOV". --Alecmconroy 10:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you think attacks on editors are necessary to create quality encyclopedia articles, I think you have an odd idea about what makes for a quality encyclopedia article. Frankly I suspect that to suggest that Misplaced Pages editors are themselves so notable as to merit inclusion in encyclopedia articles is so self-aggrandizing that it would damage the reputation of the project. Certainly none of the people who have been targets of the attack sites (with the single exception of Jimbo himself), and none of the wikipedia editors who are involved in tis arbitration or connected to any of the articles in contention, are in any way notable. And none of the attack sites themselves are notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also rather self-aggrandizing to claim that, if a site happens to have an attack on a particular editor somewhere within it, then all links and references to anything in that site, in any context, for any purpose, anywhere, are actually all about you if you're that editor, and need to be construed to be personal attacks on you and removed. So, if you find that the article on palindromes links to a clever example of a palindrome that happens to be in the same site as the attack (on a totally different page in it, and the link was added way before the attack even existed), then suddenly that has retroactively become an attack on you. Me, me, me... it's all about me! Everything centers on me! But that's exactly how the link policy has actually been applied, and that is why it is being so vigorously opposed. *Dan T.* 13:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4a) Links and references to off-site harassment may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article. Notable or significant harassment may be documented by reference to independent review in secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Slightly revised version, which is more to the point per Paul's comment above. We should not be linking to any harassment without a compelling reason. We have problems with attack sites and blogs being linked to biographies all the time, attacks on editors are a ctually a minor part of this problem. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors may be included in articles

4b) Links and references to off-site harassment may be included in an article, if the material is necessary for neutral presentation of a notable view. Notable or significant harassment is better documented by reference to independent review in secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Tom Harrison 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4c) Links and references to off-site harassment may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the quality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This, I think, broadens the suggestion to the proper level. All things being equal, we ought not link to an attack site. Phil Sandifer 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In general the burden is on whoever wants to include material to justify it. "may be excluded...if" seems to reverse that. Tom Harrison 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks on editors may be included in articles

4d) Links and references to off-site harassment may be included in an article, if doing so improves the quality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:::

Proposed. I think this is the wording that emphasizes the focus is Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just a variation of 4b) Circeus 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that 4b) says include if "necessary for neutral presentation of a notable view". I prefer to include material if it "improves", rather than "is necessary". With 4b, someone could admit material would "improve" the article by making it more comprehensive, but still exclude it on the grounds that it's not "absolutely necessary". --Alecmconroy

Misplaced Pages does not suppress criticism of itself

5) As we are a top-10 Web site with much influence in the outside world, we must expect that we will be the target of criticism, and not all of it will seem reasonable, responsible, polite, or even sane to us. Nevertheless, it is important that we avoid giving even the appearance of suppressing or repressing criticism of us, or subjecting individuals or Web sites to "guilt by association" because their possibly valid criticisms are presented alongside less reasonable ones.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be too easily misunderstood. People add non-notable criticism of Admin X, with supporting links and reams of discussion, not because it is in any way significant, but because it's somehow about us. When a serious academic writes about Misplaced Pages, we should summarize what he says about us, warts and all. If a clutch of banned trolls says Misplaced Pages is run by a Jewish conspiracy, we should ignore it. Tom Harrison 12:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

An attempt at a statement of why banning links to critic sites is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying we must avoid giving "even the appearance" is a bad idea. We shouldn't base our editorial decisions on what other people claim we're doing. Also, it's one thing for a site to just criticise Misplaced Pages in general. It's quite another to attack specific editors, and links are rarely removed in cases of the former. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's too strong a statement... certainly, when it comes to encyclopedic content, the perception regarding "censoring criticism" shouldn't be a factor in either direction. However, when it comes to dealing with commentary in project and talk pages, we should err on the side of not appearing to squelch critics. *Dan T.* 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment this is a meaningless statement. Of course we cannot suppress criticism of Misplaced Pages - if someone wants to create an attack site, or criticize us in a blog, or in a newspaper article, or on radio or TV, how could we possibly stop them? This vague and deceptively phrased sentence is a cover for two more pressing issues: first, should we actively respond to trolls (and yes, I mean trolls, not critics - the issue here is attack sites, not people who have reasonable criticisms of Misplaced Pages, which, by the way, would include most Wikipedians). I think the answer to this question should be no: don't feed the troll. Second, should we allow Misplaced Pages itself be used as a platform for publicizing attack sites? No, no, no, no, most definitely no. We have no obligation to, and it is counter productive in two ways - it will drive away good editors, and it will drive away readers who turn to Misplaced Pages for encyclopedia articles, not because they want to watch a bunch of middle-aged (or teenaged) geeks havint a public hissy fit. Bottom line: this is an encyclopedia. We are meant to provide the planet ith access to the sum of human knowledge. To think that someone's attack of wikipedia editors, or trollish attack sites that just spread gossip about Misplaced Pages, has any relevance to our goal is to degrade and betray the whole project. Our policies make this clear: we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be perfectly comfortable with criticism of Misplaced Pages. Informed and well-reasoned critique is not a problem. That does not mean we need to link to web forums full of disgruntled banned users attempting to out pseudonymous editors, pursuing grudges and generally shouting bloody blue murder because they were (usually for excellent reasons) given the bum's rush. User:JB196 posts to Misplaced Pages Review as Looch. His criticisms of Misplaced Pages have no evident authority, very little basis in fact, and are fundamentally based on the fact that he was such a monumental pain in the arse when his vanity spamming was rebuffed that one or two accounts out of over four hundred known and suspected sockpuppets are not, according to him, actually him. Sorry, but that is not a criticism of Misplaced Pages, it's a criticism of his obsessive vanity spamming and disruption, and we don't need his critique. We can get all the critique we need from places with an editorial policy and a fact-checking process; Britannica is a source of critique, and several respected newspapers also run pieces critiquing Misplaced Pages. Web forums and wikis are almost invariably rejected as sources for any article, due to fluidity of content, vulnerability to thread drift, lack of editorial policy and fact checking, and generally also because there is no validation that the editor is who they say they are.

Recently Rootology set up a site, WikiAbuse, with the intention of providing fact-checked, peer-reviewed critique. I supported this, it was a reasonable idea motivated by an apparently sincere desire to improve Misplaced Pages. It lasted about a month, I think. It was hijacked by the same grudge-bearers as populate the other attack sites, pushing the same malicious distortions and often outright lies. "Editor X is sexist because he argued against the inclusion of women in the list of major opera composers", for example; the list contains no women because there are no major women composers of opera (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Sites run or populated by banned grudge-bearers do not help us become a better encyclopaedia, they simply hamper any attempt to draw a line under past disputes by constantly re-presenting the "losing" side as if it were The Truth ™. This is the fundamental flaw with most attack sites, that is, those sites which carry significant volumes of personalised criticism of individual Wikipedians. Any attempt to engage in reasoned debate is very often derailed by the input of people who were booted from Misplaced Pages for excellent reasons, and who have it in for us as a result. People like Bagley. We've heard what he has to say, we've debated it, it's baseless - a tissue of lies from beginning to end - and one editor in particular finds any mention of it extremely hurtful. Why would we want to hear what Bagley has to say about Misplaced Pages? We know his view: his view is that he should be allowed to use Misplaced Pages to pursue his employer's Holy Crusade against naked short selling, and failure to support this Holy Crusade makes us part of the evil conspiracy to do down his fine company, whose poor share performance is entirely the result of cynical abuse by greedy conspirators, and nothing to do with their consistent failure to turn an operating profit.

Not linking to sites like Misplaced Pages Review in main space is not suppressing criticism, it's applying our sourcing guidelines. Discussing Misplaced Pages Review in project space is something that must be done with extreme caution; it's never going to be a reliable source (the main reason for discussing a link) and it is full of pretty vile diatribes by justly-banned users; we stop banned users from abusing their talk pages to attack those who banned them, and for the same reason we should be extremely wary of linking to any external platform where they do the same. Occasionally such links will be appropriate in the context of dispute resolution, so no absolute ban is practicable, but the judicious application of Clue, and not being a dick, argues very strongly indeed against linking to any site which ha substantial attack and outing content, because it is seen as a form of harassment by those attacked. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jonny Cache was User:Jon Awbrey, a different banned user from User:JB196. But nobody seems to think that getting facts straight is all that important when attacking "attack sites". *Dan T.* 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Mixing up my banned POV-pushers there :-) JB196 posts to WR as Looch. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support WP does not suppress even non-notable off wiki criticism, it simply does not link to it because it is non-notable - should it become notable then it may be linked to. Further, WP does not suppress non-notable criticism on off-wiki sites by banning links because it hosts non-notable criticism. WP does not suppress notable criticism either on or off-Wiki because it meets the criteria of WP:Notability. LessHeard vanU 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, on the ground that this arbCom case is not about attack sites against Misplaced Pages, but against non-notable individuals that happen to edit Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the premise of the proposal is that the removal of any link to a site which hosts (or has hosted) a personal attack effectively suppresses any legitimate criticism found there, and many sites which hosts (or has hosted) personal attacks will also host otherwise legitimate criticism. I should prefer Dan to comment or correct my understanding, though, before taking it as correct. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: yes, exactly. I have to say that I have a real problem with use of words like suppression and censorship and chill to describe good faith opposition to content which causes, in many case, grievous offence to its victims. Court reports do not include names of victims; strictly this could be described as censorship but in practical terms it's basic human decency. I really resent being accused of suppression or censorship because I don't think we need to link to antisocialmedia. It's no more censorship than any other editorial judgement not to include something. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP and Wikipedians

6) WP:BLP dictates that we must treat the subjects of our articles with compassion and understanding, taking special care to respect their privacy, even when, in some senses, they have become public figures. This policy applies equally to our editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Much as I do not think NPA applies to good faith edits, both in the article namespace and elsewhere, it is important not to let rejection of BADSITES into some perverse drive to link to any website in which our dirty laundry appears in the name of the greater good. Although links to or acknowledgments of sites that attack Wikipedians in vile ways may at times be necessary, they still require care and consideration of the ramifications they have on people's lives. Phil Sandifer 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Some people seem to think that because we rejected a policy stating that we may not link, then by inference we must (or even just should) link. Actually the presumption should be against linking, regardless of the status of BADSITES, for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to recognize this. Tom Harrison 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and needs to be made explicit in BLP if it is not already (as noted by SlRubenstein).--Mantanmoreland 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed, although deliberate linking to harassment for no good reason is more a strawman argument given for keeping the policy than something that people actually do. -Amarkov moo! 03:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, it's also plainly covered by accepted policies against harassment and personal attacks, no matter what happens with this case. It's whether we should link to those sites for otherwise valid reasons (e.g. as sources for or examples of a valid article) that's in dispute. ShaleZero 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles referring to our editors have the same policies as our articles about anyone else. No more, no less. --Alecmconroy 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - but is this stated clearly enough in the policy itself? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The wording appears to refer to all editors, the vast majority of whom are not notable, in reference to a policy regarding a sub-grouping (living persons) of a sub-grouping (biographies) of an article classification system. The subjects of BLP policy are included in WP on an "involuntary" basis (where third parties reach consensus regards notability criteria) whereas editors are volunteers who are able to make themselves familiar with the environment. The various policies and guidelines of WP:Civil, WP:HARASS and NPA already provide the framework for the protection of contributors. LessHeard vanU 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editing

7) Misplaced Pages editors have a right to edit without revealing their real life identities if they choose. Attempts by other editors to post information that violates this right is to be discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd go further and say if someone hasn't identified themselves, it is inappropriate to speculate on their identity. We should presume people want their privacy. Tom Harrison 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 04:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Misplaced Pages editors have a right to edit pseudonymously or using an IP address, but not anonymously. Risker 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted.--MONGO 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. The title of this still says "anonymous" and there is no such right granted in the Meta privacy policy. Risker 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. I do not wish to reveal my real life identity on Misplaced Pages and I don't have to. If someone who knew me in real life would create an account here and say "MELSARAN IS ACTUALLY JOHN DOE AND LIVES ON BROAD STREET 121!!!", then I think he would be blocked. The fact that it is not explicitly stated in the privacy policy doesn't mean that this is isn't a right. As a sidenote, the arbcom previously passed a similar principle. Melsaran (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support Risker's point is mistaken semantics - the word "anonymous" is in effect a pseudonym, and the difference is inconsequential. We need to be able to identify Wikipedian editors when it comes to blocks, bans, and sock-puppets and we have a range of ways of doing this. But beyond this I think anonymity is a plus. Misplaced Pages is premised on the idea that all people have something to contribute, and one's identity (let alone credentials) is never the basis for judging a good or bad edit; it is the edit itself. I wouldn't care if Daniel Brandt or Judd Baggley were editing articles as long as they complied fully with all of our policies. And the problem is, they (or at least baggly, to my knoweldge have actually violated our policies. But that is the issue: compliance with or violation of our policies, not the identity per se. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important principle. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, with the caveat that WP has no responsibility for information that has or had been made available by the individual previously and/or elsewhere other than to discourage its disclosure through the offices of WP. LessHeard vanU 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The "anonymity" fetish has proven troublesome. Yes, people have the right to edit without calling attention to their real-world identity, but that doesn't necessarily imply a right to force the rest of Misplaced Pages to assist them in trying to cram toothpaste back in a tube, or slam shut the barn door after the horse left, in cases where their secret identity gets out despite their best efforts to preserve it. Those exposing such identities aren't necessarily doing it to harrass or stalk somebody; sometimes the use of hidden identities hides conflicts of interest and other abuses that need to be exposed for accountability sake. In the "real world", people mostly take public actions under their real names, and even when they don't (as with actors with stage names, or writers with pen names), there is not the religious-level fervor about preserving this secret and suppressing anybody and anything that gets in the way of this. See James Tiptree, Jr for an instructive case; this was a woman writing science fiction under a male pseudonym, and she managed to preserve this secret for ten years; then she was outed by inquisitive fans, and the SF community didn't go around screaming "Outing!" "Attack site!" "Evil!" and trying to suppress this information after it was already public; it's now in the Misplaced Pages article on her. *Dan T.* 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Misplaced Pages as a community needs to lend a helping hand in obvious cases of harassment against members, in particular when these attacks are related to the fulfilling of Misplaced Pages's practices. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as weak and poorly worded. Editors certainly have a right to edit pseudonymously and discouraged is far too milquetoast a term. Durova 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen the anonymity / pseudonymity thing as a right to not reveal any personal information about yourself if you don't choose to do so, rather than an obligation on the part of anybody else to maintain or retain your secrecy if you slip up and let some revealing info be known. Some of these pseudonymous editors seem to fancy themselves as some sort of superhero with a secret identity, and just like the world must not know that Superman is Clark Kent, their identities need to be concealed, and everybody needs to actively participate in preserving this concealment, and even "unrevealing" it if it slips out. However, that's just not how things work, even in the comic book universe... Daily Planet editor Perry White is a good friend of Superman, but I bet he'd put "Superman is Clark Kent" in huge type on the front page of his paper if he found out that info, since journalism (and selling papers) would outrank protecting a friend's secrets. *Dan T.* 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mu. Sorry folks, I hate to play the heavy. But this idea falls into the territory of the old saying of "Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash". I'm not an opponent of anonymity/pseudonymity in the abstract. But people's Misplaced Pages activities are not going to have the social status of confidential informants or trade secrets. There's simply too much potential for mischief for editors with a grudge, or an ax to grind, to try to hide behind pseudonymity. Almost nobody who is subjected to hostile action is going to care about a prohibition on Revealing True Names. You can't enforce it! The only thing that will happen is for Misplaced Pages to look like a living Kafka story. That is, it's already happened with "THF"/MichaelMoore.com - someone with a very obvious, well, let's say "point of view", used Misplaced Pages in an arguably political-agenda-pushing way, and when this was protested by the target (granted, not politely), there was an uproar over, drumroll, saying exactly who was doing it. That just invites that sort of policy-gaming - attack someone, get them to react, and then attack them for reacting. Yes, I know there's all sorts of issues, but in the real world, abuses are just too tempting. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am amused at how many people continue to misrepresent the whole THF/Michael Moore controversy. Suffice to say that most of the above comment is an urban legend - enough people have now repeated that fictional version that it's now passed around as fact. ATren 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note careful phrasing in the above. I'm trying not to rehash every detail of the specific incident, but I think the broad outline is sound -- Seth Finkelstein 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiding and abetting

8) Misplaced Pages editors should not aid and abet the revelation of real life identities of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: What would be some concrete examples of "aiding and abetting" in this context? Paul August ☎ 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. A sound idea.--Mantanmoreland 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably needs some rewording to avoid abuse by Wikilawyers, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - in effect is a personal attack (equivalent to my going up to someone in the street and stripping them of their clothes against their will - an assault and violation), and defeats the point of NPOV which is to promote a community of diverse even opposing editors who can work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment per my caveat in 7 above, I cannot support such a broad principle. This does not specify those contributors who have by comment or action expressed a desire to edit anonymously, but all editors. Should we not be allowed to link to sites who give personal details such as regarding a certain Jimmy Wales? Please clarify statement per Amarkov's comments. LessHeard vanU 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What about when the hidden identity is hiding conflicts of interest or other misbehavior? *Dan T.* 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to Dan's point, what if the username is a sock of a banned or otherwise sanctioned editor? Under this ruling the editor could not be disclosed as a sock without their real life identity being known if this information is disclosed with their other identity. LessHeard vanU 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

9) Editors who remove links to websites on Misplaced Pages that have personally identifying information about any Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous, should be considered to be acting in good faith.

9.1) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not when those links reside in article namespace and are relevant to the subject. It's a bit egocentric to leave links to hate-promoting sites or neonazi sites (see e.g. Stormfront (website)) in place, and to remove links to websites that happen to target Misplaced Pages editors (in article namespace, when they are relevant to the subject). Melsaran (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is fine as a general rule-- by default everybody should be considered to be acting in good faith. But I think this principle would be intepreted as "people who remove links MUST be considered to be acting in good faith, no matter what." That's a big step from just WP:AGF. To see why this sentence is much more than just AGF, consider the converse: "Editors who ADD such links should be considered to be acting in good faith.". That's clearly not true. There can be good faith reasons and bad faith reasons to add OR remove a link-- context is critical. You can't just specify an action and say it should always be consided good faith or bad faith. --Alecmconroy 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that last sentence. Proposed 9.1 (adapted from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Assume good faith). Melsaran (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Melsaran is wrong to make "relevance" the only criteria for inclusion - it must be relevance and notability, and it is on notability that most of the attack sites in question fall far short of the mark. B the way, I do agree that our criteria should apply to all hate sites: mention them only if the are relevant and notable. Misplaced Pages should not go out of its way to publicize fringe views. If a fringe-view is innoccuous, we can mention it in passing - but if it is both fringe and hateful, it just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is a bad policy for a whole range of counter-arguments to this. Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What a silly essay! :-) Oh, and thanks for linking to it so I don't have to do it myself and get accused of "spamming"!  :-O *Dan T.* 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose This allows the removal of what appears cited or referenced text without debate, without peer review, and assumes massive bad faith on the part of the editor placing the link. This is against the principle of WP:Consensus. The case for removing links needs to be made on each occasion.LessHeard vanU 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a double-edged sword, since good faith also should be assumed of those who add the controversial links. *Dan T.* 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Durova 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant. Good faith has not been called into question. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative sources

10) If a website routinely engages in presenting information revealing the real life identities of our contributors, alternative sources should be used as much as possible to satisfy requirements for reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support.--Mantanmoreland 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, inasmuch as any source that would be considered objectionable by a reasonable person (Hate sites, explicit pornography, etc.) should be avoided when not directly relevant to the material in question. ShaleZero 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as above; we don't censor relevant encyclopaedic content because it happens to target our contributors. There are many sites out there that are offensive to non-Wikipedians and we link to them. See also User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy. Melsaran (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, where the same content can be gained from a source that is more objective then of course we should use that other source. And actually we have probably lost sight of something here: in trying to cite antisocialmedia, for example, we would be citing a primary source, when actually we should probably look for a secondary source instead. ASM is not a reliable source for anything, and in documenting the controversy we should be looking to what outside commentators say. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree on principle. We should use the BEST sources-- the most reliable, the most notable, to create the best article possible. In practice, I doubt we're going to find any cases where an outing site really is the best source-- but it's important that we choose our sources based on the "Best Source" standard, not the "Least Objectionable" standard. --Alecmconroy 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see any example where an attack site is a better source for anything than a non-attack site. Engaging in attacks is usually a sign of a profound lack of objectivity. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What site would have been better to link to on the Michael Moore article than www.michaelmoore.com? Which would have been better than www.antisocialmedia.net/ in the dispute about that page? If an 'attack site', however we choose to define that loaded term, is notable and relevant then we should link to it. Period. Doesn't matter how 'bad' they have or have not been... we're an encyclopedia, not the morality police. Do the two sites above have "a profound lack of objectivity"? Absolutely... which, ironically, is a large part of what makes them notable. --CBD 08:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack site. The editor who, in good faith, removed it, was rapidly corrected. It's not objective, either, so it's probably not a particularly good source for anything other than what Michael Moore says about anything. I think WP:RS discusses the use of openly polemical sources. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapidly corrected? I seem to recall BADSITES advocates agreeing with the claim that it was an attack site... four different users removing the link... edit warring for several days... insistence that 3RR did not apply to the dozen or so removals from that page... et cetera. This was not a brief 'rapidly corrected' mistaken application of the principle by one misguided user... several of the same people who have pushed this concept since the beginning were right there with him. They backed down only after blocks were starting to be handed down for the unwarranted disruption and the sole 'attack' which supposedly required complete censoring of the site had been removed. Nor have I seen any of them acknowledge that this was an error or say that they wouldn't do it just the same again. --CBD 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Alecmconroy. Other material hosted by a site should have no bearing on the suitability of the source for the purpose of the article. This might also set a dangerous precedent of tainting sources by association in regard to other areas of contention (nationalism, religion, politics etc.) if adopted. LessHeard vanU 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. We shouldn't have anything resembling a "blacklist" of sources based on whether some of us dislike what they do. *Dan T.* 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Durova 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks defined

11) A personal attack is a deliberately written pejorative comment made by one editor about another editor that may include the use of links to material hosted on Misplaced Pages or other websites. Links to the identical material in other contexts are not inherently personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this muddies more than it clarifies. Phil Sandifer 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Intended to clarify that it isn't a personal attack if it isn't personal. Can assist in addressing situations such as the mass deletion of links to Making Light, or the rampages throughout Misplaced Pages to delete all links to a site because of one perceived personal attack on that site. Risker 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I originally commented only that it is poorly phrased. It is now clear to me that it is so poorly phrased it can only invite abuses. Obviously, this is what a personal attack is. But it is not the only form of personal attack, i.e. it is an incomplete description of a personal attack. Any American who was ever between 8 and 18 years old knows very well that the most affective personal attack is "Mark told me you have a tiny dick" or "Joe said you are a slut and went down on ten guys last year." (This is such common knowledge in the US that if anyone disputes this i have to believe they are acting in bad faith. In the meantime I suggest they rent the movie Mean Girls. And yet some people here at Misplaced Pages seem to think that if you use this phrasing here (X claims that Y ...) they are not engaging in a personal attack. This is disingenuous if not simply bad faith. It is also a perversion of NPOV. Most editors and the personal details about editors do not come close to the standards of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and even when they do we need to be very careful about how they are treated in Misplaced Pages articles - if they are notable enough to be mentioned in an article, then BLP applies. In any event, obviously any edit including to the content of an article that amounts to "Well that's what I heard" or "Well that's what he said" is obviously - OBVIOUSLY - a personal attack. Any kid at a Junior High playground knows this ... people writing an encyclopedia should at least be as knowledgable as the average 12 year old. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically support, but agree that the wording is clumsy, and other proposals on this page make the necessary points better. *Dan T.* 16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. This would be carte blanche for anybody to evade WP:NPA by simply writing the attack offsite and linking it. I don't know what the intention was of this principle, but as written I'd say it's a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Extremely gameable. Durova 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as worded. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic Integrity

12) Misplaced Pages should report matters regarding itself or its editors with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from the Associated Press's "Statement of Ethical Principles". See talk. --Alecmconroy 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I changed from "comment" to "oppose" because this opens the door to expecting Misplaced Pages to be like a newspaper, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Hee is my original comment: I think that the AP's ethical principals are a valuable resource as we consider our own ethics. I add however that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and WP:NOT makes this an explicit principal. What we consider balanced and unbiased may be different from what journalists consider balanced and unbiased. And as an encyclopedia we may confront ethical issues journalists do not. So I have no problem with this as long as it does not in any way violate or do an end-run around WP:NOT. Our job is to help give everyone access to make the sum of human knowledge, and this entails a standard of notability that is much higher than newspapers (which report on news that people may forget within days) and this may require different ethical principles. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this particular line in the AP is good, but other parts are less applicable. See my verbose response in talk momentarily. --Alecmconroy 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, peeps. Ignore that the principle originated in the world of print journalism and just consider the actual content: Should articles on Misplaced Pages or its editors be treated the same way we treat articles on other subjects? The fact that "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper" is irrelevant-- the principle is still a good one. --Alecmconroy 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, to make it less vague and newspapery, we could change the wording to something like "Misplaced Pages should cover matters regarding itself or its editors according to the same standards it would apply to other institutions or individuals." --Alecmconroy

Support. *Dan T.* 12:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It's not really "turning Misplaced Pages into a newspaper", since all this particular provision says is that, to the extent that covering things involving ourselves becomes part of our mission, it needs to be done in a fair, impartial manner. This is true of encyclopedic coverage as much as it is true of journalistic coverage. *Dan T.* 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it is either redundant with NPOV and unnecessary, or some kind of strange way to supplant NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a necessary corrollary of NPOV, but many editors do not. They think sites that attack Wikipedians should be treated differently than sites that attack people who aren't wikipedians. Spelling out that we treat everything equally would be advantageous. --Alecmconroy 07:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is begging the question. A journalist applies critical judgement when assessing the quality of his sources; so do we. On the other hand, a journalist may be engaging in campaigning, which we must not do. And Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. So although we should aspire to the sorts of codes of ethics common in the more serious journals, we are in the end an encyclopaedia and not "reporters". If a criticism of Misplaced Pages is significant, there will be reliable secondary sources that say it is significant, and how it is significant, and give context. The ruling policies here are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Requiring "vigor" and "candor" in pursuing allegations against our editors has little to do with that, although obviously we require intellectual honesty in respect of significant critique from respectable individuals. There's no evident link between that and attack sites, though, since responsible and respectable individuals do not engage in attacks and harassment. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of circular logic to that, where if you don't want to deal with some criticism site, you just have to declare it to be an "attack site" (people will have to take your word for it since you'll suppress all links and references whereby anybody else could see for themselves) and then it would follow from there that it's not "responsible" or "respectable". Then you can close the loop by saying that because these people are not "responsible" or "respectable", they must be presumed to have a motive of attack and harrassment for anything they do (Assume Bad Faith). When you look at things that way, you'll find plenty of evidence to justify a continued ban on anything to do with these people. "It's an attack site." "Why?" "Because it's full of banned users who are irresponsible and unrespectable." "Why are they irresponsible and unrespectable?" "Because they participate in an attack site." "But why is it an attack site?" "Because it has people like that in it." "I went there and didn't see any attacks, just criticisms." "You didn't look in the right place in that site." "Where is the right place?" "I can't tell you... I'm not allowed to link to it. You'll just have to trust me." "Why should I trust you?" "Because you have to Assume Good Faith." "But isn't that Assuming Bad Faith of the people in the other sites?" "What are you, a stinking evil troll?" *Dan T.* 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we have mechanisms for dealing with credible allegations of abuse against Misplaced Pages editors and administrators. That is not the same as saying that sites which harass and out editors may or may not be linked. This principle as written begs the question of how credible these sites are. I have yet to see an attack site - that is, a site which engages in significant harassment and outing - which is a reliable or credible source of information. Not even the site you post to. Every one I've seen is populated by people whose first loyalty is to themselves or their agenda, who have been rebuffed from Misplaced Pages due to tensions between that and our fundamental policies. Sure, even a stopped cloak is right twice a day, but that doesn't make the attack sites we've discussed here anything other than manifestly unreliable and distinctly dangerous. In article space we link to reliable sources. In meta debate we link to credible critique. We'd need a really good reason to link a harassment site. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's not so much Misplaced Pages as a site as its volunteers that are at issue here. Durova 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability cannot be prejudged

13) In keeping with the policy that Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and the working definition of notability, the site's policies cannot presume in advance what subjects will or will not become notable in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Superfluous and also wrong. We're going to start running articles on future notables?--Mantanmoreland 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ShaleZero 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Melsaran (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to arguments that we can categorically ban links to "attack sites"; that implies (and sometimes outright claims) that no site falling into that category will ever be notable enough to deserve an article. Viz. ] ShaleZero 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant. This is not about links that people assert might one day in the future be relevant, it's about the here-and-now. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Irrelevant. Anyone can edit a wikipedia article at any time so wikipedia articles are always works in progress so they are never finished. that means that all we care about is what is notable at the moment. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support The potential of a site in helping build the encyclopedia should not be constrained by the banning of linking generally following the hosting of attack material. LessHeard vanU 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably mostly irrelevant, but I support it to the extent that it's on-topic for this issue. People shouldn't, for instance, regard the prior decision regarding linking to ED as precluding a link to it on an article about it should that site later be judged notable in an overturning of the earlier decisions that it was not. *Dan T.* 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored

14) Misplaced Pages is not censored. Articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content and do not violate any of our existing policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In essence-- "If content makes for a better encyclopedia article, it can be included." The opposite of this is Proposed Principle #4, which I paraphrase as "Objectionable content will be scrubbed unless deleting it would absolutely violate NPOV." --Alecmconroy 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This refers to the inclusion of images and text that people find objectionable for religious or other reasons, such as the Mohammed cartoons or explicit images in sexual topics. It absolutely does not give us an excuse to link to external harassment or even external POV forks. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The caveat at the end of it stops that being an issue. Viridae 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "do not violate any of our existing policies" is an extremely important clause-- relevancy is just the first of many many criteria content must meet in order to be included. --Alecmconroy

No, the caveat has no relevance. Censorship is about content which offends deeply held moral or religious beliefs, or "for the protection of minors". I do not believe, and I would like to see any evidence to the contrary, that this was ever included as a prohibition against removing links to hate speech, especially hate speech against our editors for - in the main - enforcing policy. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think our Muslim editors would, justly, be outraged by a Misplaced Pages that could include notable attacks against Muhammad, but which purged notable attacks against Misplaced Pages. --Alecmconroy 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about "criticisms of Misplaced Pages" we are talking about sites that make personal attacks against Wikipedian editors. And I certainly do not know of any criticism of a Wikipedian editor what is even a couple of orders of magnitiude of notability close to the notable criticisms of Mohammed. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What Slrubenstein said. This is not about purging criticisms of Misplaced Pages it's about hate speech. The analogy would be closer to how a Muslim editor would react to our linking the Stormfront website's opinion on an Islamic issue - and in that case they would be justly outraged. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment A total red-herring. Misplaced Pages is not censored except to comply with our policies? So what exactly do we mean by censored? Irrelevant, since what is at issue here is what are our policies, what is the best way to apply them. Introducing the word "censorship" is just inflammatory rhetoric that would distract people from the real task at hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if NPA applies to good-faith article content, then this principle may be ared herring-- because ALL objectionable content will violate polcies. If ,however, NPA doesn't appply to good faith article content, then this is a very important principle, because it says "Just because it upsets you, that's not a valid reason to remove it." --Alecmconroy 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is the principle behind the pillar that is "Neutral point of view". LessHeard vanU 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Some take their crusade against "attack sites" almost to the point of it being a religion to them, so it ends up falling in the same category as things that are blasphemy to other religions. *Dan T.* 15:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Qualified support: this principle may swing its fists so long as it doesn't land a blow on WP:V and WP:BLP. Durova 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a worrying extension of WP:NOT Censored. That's designed to describe the inclusion of explicit content (and things like the Mohammed cartoons). Using it as an umbrella to link to hate speech - against anyone - is an extraordinarily bad idea. I have had some extreme bigots in the past complain that we are "censoring" Misplaced Pages by removing bigotry, citing this policy. I would hate for there to be an apparent ArbCom endorsement for not censored meaning permission to link to attacs; I don't think that's what the policy is for. This view was supported in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper

15) Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper: News reports, and tabloid newspaper articles Misplaced Pages properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although true, Misplaced Pages does have a long tradition of covering current events and more minor subjects, and I worry that this states the case more strongly than current community practice supports. Phil Sandifer 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an essential point.--Mantanmoreland 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

True, and important to note in this context. Tom Harrison 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge this and do not think that the principle - which really is just taken from our WP:NOT policy - means that we can't go on reporting on current events on the front page. I welcome friendlky amendments. The point is two-fold: first, mere mention in a newspaper odes not satisfy the standard of notability required for inclusion in an article, and second, the standards for inclusion in an encyclopedia article are higher than for inclusion in a newspaper. This princple is meant to address contents of encyclopedia articles and not the main page's coverage of current events. Slrubenstein | Talk

I meant my remark to support the principle Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Sorry if that's unclear. Tom Harrison 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I also have to plead guilty to being hazy. The "essential point" to which I referred was the one made by Slrubenstein. This is highly relevant to the matter at hand. As an encyclopedia, it is incumbent to take the long view and take care against giving excess weight to tabloidesque subject matter.--Mantanmoreland 02:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: The standard of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia is higher than the standard for inclusion in a newspaper. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Non-notable is a fine reason to exclude info, andmere newspaper-level-notability is never an automatic proof of encyclopedic-level-notatblity. Similarly, all articles must take ito account BLP considerations, regardless of whehterh the living person is a Misplaced Pages editor or not. --Alecmconroy 12:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. We often forget this aspect in these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection... irrelevant. This goes afield from the issue of site links and gets into the issues of inclusionism vs. deletionism, and notability, which are issues with a whole new set of conflicts and minefields. We should tackle one hot-button issue at a time. *Dan T.* 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant for any situation where an editor has argued for inclusion of a link to a website solely because it was mentioned in a newspaper article, as if that were sufficient notability - and our own policy makes it clear that it is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is important. ewspapers are there to sell newspapers, which means that sensationalism is actually at a premium, even in the more respectable papers. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not an aggregation of news reports; our aim should be to distil and reflect what reputable independent sources say about a thing, not to join in the debate ourselves. The "he said / she said" that we sometimes get in articles on controversial individuals just makes for a battleground to make your side's section the largest, or get in the last word. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also have the No Original Research provision, which gets in the way of trying to "distill" and "reflect" it ourselves. *Dan T.* 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Distilling the essence of what reliable secondary sources say is the whole point of Misplaced Pages. It's why we call ourselves editors, not writers. In fact, it's exactly what WP:NOR does say. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An important reason for NPOV is to create an open, collaborative community

16) The most important lesson of NPOV, "more important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal." See also "The primary reason for NPOV

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question for Slrubenstein: As regards to article content, are you asserting that we should treat "attacks" on Misplaced Pages editors differently than attacks on non-editors? Paul August ☎ 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I think NPOV means we should treat editors differently from non editors? Yes. That is how I read NPOV, which explains itself as a framework to enable very different people with different views to collaborate. We already do this in other ways, for example, we expect editors to write in a non-biased, neutral way - but we do not expect authors of the sources we draw on in articles to write in a non-biased, neutral way ... so yes, we have different standards for people who do participate in writing the encyclopedia and people who do not. As for personal attacks - i explicitly did not include this in my formulation, not because it is covered elsewhere in this workshop, but because I intended to make a prescriptive rather than proscriptive point. I do not think that Misplaced Pages editors should make personal attacks against anyone, editor or non-editor. In fact, you may conclude the NPOV is entirely irrelevant to this case, and any point anyone makes about NPOV is moot. But some people, esp. Phil Sandifer in his statement and people who reject this point, are claiming NPOV applies. Well, if NPOV applies, let's make sure we consider the policy in its fullness. The policy itself states that the reason is to promote collaboration among editors. I am arguing that this needs to be taken into account IF ArbCom chooses to apply NPOV to this case. Below, Alcmconroy states that the goal of Misplaced Pages is to produce a verifiable NPOV encyclopedia and anything else is a means to that goal (making NPOV the end); Dtobias says the "community" is subsidiary. They are wrong. In a statement published by CNN as part of its "Principal Voices" series (I see it published in Time Magazine Sept 17), Jimmy Wales states:

My passion is captured best in the vision statement that guides my work: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge." .... And by "the sum of all knowledge" I mean everything that communities can gather and share .... We are living in a unique era. People talk about peer-to-peer, but it is my belief that few have truly grasped what that means, and where we are all going. We need to learn that peer-to-peer works through respect of each other - as peers

In other words, the "end" of Misplaced Pages is not a neutral verifiable encyclopedia, it is a global community in which everyone has access to the sum of all human knowledge. Neutrality and verifiability are means to this end. NPA is a means to this end too, and an essential one because personal attacks make peer-to-peer respect and the goal of universal access impossible, and the goal of a communities sharing is impossible. NPA is prescriptive. NPOV is proscriptive. And our NPOV policy is both a means and an end, it is not solely an end, it is also a means to create and maintain this community and peer-to-peer respect. Now, ArbCom can apply this as they choose. I am merely pointing out that this is an important component of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is ludicrous. Phil Sandifer 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, monsieur. This is a significant point. There is an underlying assumption that NPA conflicts with NPOV. It's as if we must self-flagellate in order to build this project. But this is an encyclopedia, not the Great Pyramid of Cheops. A neutral tone is achieved by maintaining harmony and a collaborative effort between editors.--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

...and the way to do that is to gang up on, ban, censor, and drive away anybody with conflicting opinions, after which everybody left will all have harmony (and if you don't link to the other sites that harbor people you're not harmonious with, you can just pretend they don't exist). *Dan T.* 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i hardly see how attacking an editor constitutes a "notable view" on an "encyclopedic topic." But maybe now you no longer believe in NPOV? We can't just pick and choose which parts of the policy we will accept, you know. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed: The spirit of NPOV is not in conflict with NPA; the two policies are equally important in creating an environment in which editors can freely contribute without fear of persecution. To use Misplaced Pages as a platform for publicising attakcs against editors and attack sites violates the spirit and point of NPOV as well as NPA. For NPOV to justify including reference to an attack site, that site must meet a very high standard of notability. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Per my comment at 14 NPOV is one of five pillars, whereas NPA is a policy. NPOV may allow the limits of NPA to be tested in order to build the encyclopedia, but NPA must not constrain NPOV. LessHeard vanU 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent my point. Nowhere do I say NPA constrains NPOV. I am saying NPOV constrains you and in ways you refuse to acknowledge. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I misrepresent your point, but I do take issue with your statements that NPOV are NPA both are "equal" (per my earlier comments regarding pillar vs. policy) and "not in conflict" as far as the application of NPA to potential sources in light of "attack sites". If certain sites are to be debarred as sources then the principle of Wp:npov#Balance is at risk. I acknowledge that NPOV constrains me, but I desire that the constraint is applied equally (and never not at all).LessHeard vanU 11:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I can clarify: NPOV is prescriptive. It exists in order to foster an open community of people who bring with them divergent and even conflicting views. Promoting NPOV means promoting this open community. I think that treating an attack on a wikipedia editor by an outside party as notable solely because it is an attack on a Misplaced Pages editor actually constrains NPOV. It is a back-handed way to put pressure on editors whose views you (I mean the generic you) don't like. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The community is subsidiary to the encyclopedia, and NPOV includes being neutral when it comes to criticisms of Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. *Dan T.* 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies to notable encyclopedic topics. Please tell me where in the NPOV policy it states that atttacking an editor is a notable view on an encyclopedic topic? Slrubenstein | Talk

If attacks on non-editors can be notable (and they can be; see any number of articles on political conflict or the like, as well as articles on hate groups, for examples), NPOV requires that we don't give special consideration to attacks on editors. ShaleZero 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies to all encyclopedic topics. If the only reliable source on a subject determines that it (the subject) is a "complete waste of fucking time" then that is the neutral point of view. Likewise, if Osama bin Laden were to openly edit WP then comment on that editor, no matter how else it violates NPA, CIVIL, etc, is likely to be considered NPOV within the context of the available references. LessHeard vanU 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lunacy. A Verifiable NPOV encyclopedia is the goal. Everything else is just a means to an end. --Alecmconroy 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. The purpose of NPOV is to create a good encyclopedia. The community is important, yes, but the purpose of the policy is not fostering community. -Amarkov moo! 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe this, then go work for any conventional encyclopedia such as Encarta or Encyclopedia Brittanica. Misplaced Pages is premised on the idea that a wiki-community can produce a superior encyclopedia. The value of the wiki-community is essentially bound up with our vision of what would be a superior encyclopedia. My critics act as if there is a necessary conflict or opposition between the two. That is how the editors of EB think, which is why they require editors to have credentials and have an editorial board to review all articles. It is a view that is anathema to Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sl, I just want you to know that your above answer (and your answer to Paul August) was very eloquent and beautiful, and I think it has done more to help me understand your (and others) POV than any other words I've heard in this debate, and though it doesn't convince me, it is beautiful. A very good post.

I have a different point of view-- for me, Misplaced Pages is primarily "an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy", nor an attempt at an online utopia. Human beings attack each other. The KKK attacks blacks, the Anti-Semites attacks Jews, the Democrats attack the Republicans, and as Misplaced Pages becomes world-famous, our critics attack us. When the humans out there engage in "noteworthy and encyclopedic" personal attacks on each other, it's our job to cover it-- ugly though it is, divisive though it may be.

Were but that there was none of it to cover. I just hope that the damage that truly following NPOV does to the wiki-community will be offset by the good that a truly NPOV encyclopedia does to the GLOBAL community. --Alecmconroy 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I am glad that open dialogue can help us express ourselves more clearly and better understand one another - I think this is one of the things I mean when I place such a high value on community. Now, just to be clear: I agree with you that the world is not perfect and that we need to cover upsetting topics when they are encyclopedic (Nazis, KKK, political and ethical hot potatoes like abortion) and provide full coverage of notable views. So far, in other parts of this workship, I have emphasized notability and I believe that attacks on Misplaced Pages editors are simply not notable, and I would not put the attack sites themselves in the same category of notability as the examples you provide. But here I am making a different point: procedurally - in order to write NPOV articles on these topics, we need a diverse group of collaborators working together. I just do not think NPOV is possible as an end without this, and I think NPOV policy itself acknowledges that NPOV is also a means to get people to work together. Is this naive utopianism? No. We have all dealt with trolls and POV pushers and there are a variety of ways to get rid of them through blocking and bans, by the community or ArbCom. If an editor's attack is so truly noteworthy that it deserves encyclopedic coverage, I would propose to you that that editor would already have been banned. I think you are mixing up two important principles. When there is a conflict among editors, ArbCom has to treat them fairly and with due process - this is not NPOV (which is about article contents), it is about dispute resolution (which is about relations among editors). ArbCom has to take into account all sides of a conflict. But when a Misplaced Pages article is used to encourage people who are making personal attacks against editors, or to publicise personal attacks against editors, that is not NPOV - that is some editor hijacking an article page in order to attack another editor and perhaps use NPOV as camouflage - which I think is a perversion of NPOV. The result will not be a high-quality encyclopedia. The result will be to drive away some of our best editors, and to turn off potential new editors whom we need for this project to work. There are people I personally consider racists here editing articles. As long as they comply with our policies, I cannot touch them - and the result is a diverse group of editors with diverse bodies of knowledge contributing to make a better encyclopedia. If I can use articles to attack that person - or if he can use articles to attack me - and one or both of us leaves the project, the result will be a loss to the encyclopedia. This is what I think is at stake in the NPOV policy: a diverse and inclusive community will produce a better encyclopedia, and we need policies to enable that community to function and even more, to foster that community among editors. It may not happen in the outside world! But we try to make it happen here as the way to produce a great encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom does not make policy

17) Policy on Misplaced Pages is made by consensus. The ArbCom exists to resolve disputes about the application of policy in particular cases, but does not make policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The truth of this statement has shifted several times since the creation of the arbcom, but it has never been wholly true or wholly false. Phil Sandifer 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It seems useful to state this given that people have often cited the earlier ArbCom decision as somehow imposing a link-ban policy, when this is outside the proper power of the ArbCom to impose. *Dan T.* 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. This is a frequent misconception. The ArbCom may clarify policy, yes, and they do not always have to take policy into account in an arbitration ruling, but they may not unilaterally create new policy without consensus. Melsaran (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur per Dan. LessHeard vanU 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Very strongly support - it really does make me cringe when I see someone referencing the arbcom decision when removing "bad" links (this is in general - not specific to this case). The committee needs to make sure that the community knows where it stands. Martinp23 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Question to Phil: how do you reconcile this with your position at proposal 18? Durova 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone ever say they did? This is about clarifying how policy should be determined in a good-faith dispute between editors in good standing. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Burden of proof

18) In article space, the onus is on those seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Bold, revert, discuss is the accepted model.

18.1) Within an article, the onus is on those seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Bold, revert, discuss is the accepted model.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: Since either the presence or the absence of content can be POV, why should we favor one over the other? Paul August ☎ 06:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the default in the case of disputed content, especially where living individuals are concerned (which generally applies to attack sites, whether they attack editors or others), is to remove it pending consensus to include. Bold, revert, discuss. Where absence of a fact impacts on neutrality, consensus will rapidly form to that effect, but we do not include defamatory material in articles while we talk among ourselves, I think that's pretty much a given. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No. Exactly backwards. The burden of proof is on removal, not inclusion. Reversion is not a standard tactic and is discouraged. Phil Sandifer 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil, you are wrong. See WP:BRD. And WP:BLP. Disputed content comes out until there is consensus for its inclusion, and the only people I've seen reversing that in real content disputes have been trolls and POV-pushers. The presumption for inclusion refers to the existence of an article, not to disputed content within it. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is correct and well established. The burden is on whoever wants to include material to justify it. It's incorrect to argue that anything that has ever been added must be retained until someone can cite policy mandating its removal. Tom Harrison 15:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. A well-established principal.--Mantanmoreland 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is relevant in respect of user conduct, edit-warring over links is wrong, even if the link is unequivocally not an attack site. Consensus was very rapidly achieved to link michaelmoore.com in the article. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since several people have evidently misunderstood this as meaning that the default is to delete articles, I introduce 18.1, which is hopefully clearer. This is the bold, revert, discuss model spelled out, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither side should have the burden of proof; content disputes should be decided by preponderance of evidence and consensus, without prejudice one way or the other. *Dan T.* 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should. WP:BRD. Boldly add, revert if disputed, then discuss. If there is no consensus to include something, it should not be included, especially where living individuals are involved. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. We are building the encyclopedia. Refer to points 1, 6 and 10 of Misplaced Pages:Simplified ruleset#Safe behaviours. LessHeard vanU 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose dragging the inclusionary/exclusionary debate into this in any form. ShaleZero 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not inclusion / exclusion, it's about how content disputes are managed. Consider: an editor includes text in an article that advances a minority point of view. It's reverted. What do we do? we take it to talk, and it stays out of the article until consensus is reached. Anything else is madness. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Already in policy, and if anything more applicable at this sensitive issue. Durova 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do no (unnecessary) harm

19) In meta-debate, dogmatic stances based on support of or opposition to certain positions are unhelpful. It is expected that editors will take an intelligent and thoughtful approach to discussing the merits of individual links in meta-debate, but with a presumption that links to sites which contain substantial attack content will not be linked without a compelling reason, out of consideration for those attacked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Debate over whether we may or may not link to certain classes of site in certain contexts has obscured the fact that in many cases the accusations are fatuous and linking them is never going to change that. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And how is anybody to determine for themselves whether something is "fatuous" when they're "protected" from actually going there to see it? Is it better to have a censorship board meeting in a star chamber to decide this for everybody else? *Dan T.* 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point. Arguing for links "because BADSITES is bad policy" or arguing for removal citing RFAr/MONGO are both bad reasons; we should address the actual link in the actual context, not hijack every single debate to rehash the same argument (which is probably why we're here in the first place). I thought you were in favour of applying a pragmatic approach? Guy (Help!) 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, support the first clause (in favor of deciding things intelligently and non-dogmatically), but am uncomfortable with the second, where a biased presumption is snuck in (dogmatically?). *Dan T.* 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not dogmatic, it's a theme which runs through a lot of Misplaced Pages policy: no personal attacks, civility, biographies of living persons, Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT#NEWS - read through Jimbo's statements on people dealing with people and first and a decent respect for people's feelings is clearly of surpassing importance. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring and courtesy blanking

20) In some cases, consideration of an off-site allegation is necessary in order to establish whether there is a case to answer. If after debate it is decided that there is no merit to the allegations, it is appropriate to mark the debate as closed and to refactor to remove references to the meritless allegations, out of consideration for the editors concerned. Courtesy blanking of meta debate is also an accepted practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be justified in some cases, but it is always in tension with our spirit of openness, where somebody researching the history of a dispute has access to all the relevant facts. *Dan T.* 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in the history. We only oversight or delete privacy violations, or under "right to vanish". This is not in any way inconsistent with openness. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see the blanking of entire discussion pages when they're no longer relevant (if the pages have stuff on them that's unnecessarily embarrassing and shouldn't be left where they turn up when you google somebody's name), but I don't like the bowdlerization of discussions by censoring out some of the external links so you can't see exactly what people are talking about. People have even done idiotic things like purposely inserting misspellings of site names in others' comments (making them look illiterate) in order to keep from directly speaking the Evil Name of Lord Vold... er, I mean an attack site. *Dan T.* 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Again with the censorship thing. These are real human beings we're dealing with, and if people feel harassed or intimidated by content in old debates then we absolutely should use courtesy blanking or refactoring, we do this all the time when people ask for deletion debates of vanity articles to be blanked. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship, no matter what happy face you might put on it by using some euphemistic description of it. There may be instances where censorship is actually necessary or desirable (like keeping dangerous information out of the hands of enemies in wartime), but one should be honest about what one is advocating. *Dan T.* 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! CENSORSHIP! more CENSORSHIP! yet more CENSORSHIP!!!Indef-block Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and tell him he's got it all wrong. Use of the word censorship in debates of this kind is almost always indicative of lack of any better argument, please choose a better rationale for opposing the courtesy blanking or refactoring of debates which have the potential to cause real personal distress to our editors. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a specific reason why a discussion not being blanked would cause problems (i.e. an Arbcom case, including accusations of misconduct against a user with their real name), then yes, courtesy blanking is fine. But this is a compromise of our principle of openness, and we can't do it whenever someone says "well, this is causing me personal distress!" -Amarkov moo! 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Links not always necessary

21) In some cases it is possible to discuss a site within an article without including a link, where there is no significant detriment to the encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. One can discuss a sewer without crawling into it.--Mantanmoreland 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. In the case of antisocialmedia.net the site has no merit as a source but its existence is of some significance to Bagley. We can note its existence and content without being compelled to actually deliver people there. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; people should be encouraged to read all sides of an issue in dispute so that they have the information to make up their own mind, rather than have it decided for them behind their backs. *Dan T.* 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors, guided by policy, make decisions to include and exclude things all the time. And you must live in a very tiny world if you think my only source of information, or even principle source, iw Misplaced Pages. Since I can access Misplaced Pages, guess what! I can also access google, Yahoo and Ask search engines. Why - guess what! - I have access to the world wide web!! I guess I am not like you in that I do not look to Misplaced Pages to tell me what to read, ever. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Subjective and therefore likely to produce edit conflict. LessHeard vanU 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on common-sense grounds. Search engines exist. Once we've described a Web site in any detail and given its name, there's no effective difference between that and providing a link. ShaleZero 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an argument that just as easily supports the proposal. The real question here is, do we have an obligation to publicize everything that is on the web? My answer is: that is a nonsensical position. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - excluding the name of someone's website is an unabashed effort to silence them. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it silence anyone? I have my own web-page - if I do not provide a link to your web-page, am I silencing you? Misplaced Pages does not provide a link to my web-page - am I silenced? Boo-hooh, you don't have a link to my web-page, you are oppressing me!! Give me a break! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support It is obvious, and it should be left to the judgement of editors working on an article, guided by policy. Sandifer's dismissal of this as nonsense is itself patently nonsense. We have no obligation to publicize anyone's website, and not to do so is in no way silencing. Silencing is when you literally gag someone, or kill them - or deny them the means to communicate. Anyone who has a website by definition is not silenced. Phil, look up the word "silenced" in the dictionary, it just doesn't mean what you think it means. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The people you're muzzling and restricting are actually the writers and readers of Misplaced Pages, for whom you've constrained the range of discussion and sources of information, not the external site writers. *Dan T.* 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, muzzling, restricting, such emotive terms. Actually this is perfectly normal practice in all types of content: just because we can include something doesn't mean we must or even should. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you had better get a dictionary (hey - if you are online now, you are free to try answers.com ... uh, must I provide the link for you right here, or are you capable of figuring out how to access it yourself?) and look up "muzzle" and "restrict." Misplaced Pages is not the FCC. We have no power to restrict or muzzle anyone. Nothing we do can restrict or muzzle anyone. Do you think if I don't put a copy on Mein Kampf on my bookshelf I am muzzling nazi's right to free speech? Figure it out, DanT - just because we do not include it in Misplaced Pages does not mean we are censoring it. You must have delusions of grandeur if you think that! The fact is this: the proposed principle gives Wikipedian editors choice. If you reject this principle and requre Misplaced Pages editors to include every website, it is you who are denying their freedom to exercise their good judgement. You have no right to do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative support based upon the in some cases proviso. Durova 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This might literally be true, but I think this principle would in practice be interpreted as "Links should be removed whenever possible, unless their removal would absolutely positively violate NPOV". --Alecmconroy 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it literally is true. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, links are not always technically necessary. But we don't really need any links, we can just give the site name and people can Google the link. We provide links as a convenience to readers. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed ethics

22) Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is either meaningless (everybody has to live with the consequences of whatever decision is made) or biased in the direction of deciding in favor of whichever party to a controversy puts on the most convincing drama queen act claiming that they're personally harmed by something (according to their own subjective feelings). Decisions should be made more objectively than that. *Dan T.* 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ: when a website specifically identifies a particular individual, that individual is uniquely qualified to determine the harm done. I used this principle to nominate Seth Finkelstein's and Daniel Brandt's Misplaced Pages articles for deletion and I see no reason why it ought to be less applicable to Wikipedian volunteers targeted by other websites. Individuals who were not specifically targeted have the option to walk away from the problem with no personal consequences. Wikipedian volunteers have been harassed at their workplaces, etc. It is rather uncivil to reduce these concerns to an epithet such as drama queen act. Durova 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't support the deletion of the Brandt or Finkelstein articles, because I don't support veto power on the part of individuals over articles on them. I also don't support veto power on the part of individual Wikipedians over linking to outside sites that happen to mention them. The way it's been applied, even links to totally unrelated things in the same domain as a message thread that attacked somebody have been subjected to this alleged veto power. *Dan T.* 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That paints with a rather broad brush. Durova 02:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Clarification, not Permission

23) The parties requesting clarification of the interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO as relating to Attack sites are acting in good faith with a view to restoring to Misplaced Pages the potential to use the best sources permissible when required, and are not seeking to evade any other policy which may constrain the use of links or discussion of off-wiki material nor to link to unreliable/non-notable content otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. LessHeard vanU 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh are they. Can anyone point me to a situation where a good source has been removed and stayed removed from an article simply because it's an attack site? Which evidence items support this? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First point, yes (per AGF). Second point... where do you suggest we begin looking for "...stayed removed" links? I cannot be certain that it has happened, so I am arguing for the enshrined ability to be able to link in the future. LessHeard vanU 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Instances where "good sources were removed but didn't stay removed" is precisely the point. Some editors feel that the MONGO case _requires_ us to purge otherwise good sources-- resulting in disruption, edit wars, and bad feelings. Ultimately, the community corrects these mistakes-- but a clarification of the MONGO case will help stop them from happening in the future. --06:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And others feel that opposition to an interpretation of the MONGO case requires them to defend the ability to link attack sites. Which brings us full circle. This principle begs the question - I have not seen a situation where "the best sources possible" are attack sites, or a situation where a demonstrably reliable source has been removed and its removal endorsed by consensus simply because it is an attack site; usually the problem is that it is manifestly not a reliable source. Reliable sources tend not to go in for personalised harassment. The New York Times article in the Essjay controversy "outs" a Misplaced Pages editor, but it is a reliable source and written neutrally, it is not an attack, and the New York Times does not make a habit of personalising disputes. It is a reliable source, not an attack site. So I'll ask again: which point of evidence supports this? I don't see why we should have a principle based on a completely theoretical situation which does not actually apply here - no reliable sources have remained out of articles as a result of the current dispute, as far as I can tell, and we ave other principles which better serve the same purpose because they aren't based on a hypothetical situation which has never arisen. You could have it as a finding of fact, that all parties have acted in good faith (which is not disputed), but it's no kind of a principle. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"...to link to unreliable/non-notable content..." Actions speak louder than words. Tom Harrison 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This applies to some people requesting a clarification. But some misunderstand the external link policy and wish to include links that shouldn't be included, and some are just trolls. Amnesty by association isn't all that much better than guilt by association. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No special rules for external links

24) External links are subject to the same content and behavioural policies as everything else on Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. All of the current problems and confusion have come out of trying to define (and interpret) 'special rules' for external links. There is absolutely no need. We already have a policy that if a user posts personally identifying info it gets removed and the user blocked or warned... exactly what the special rules for external links to such information would have us do. We already require that sources be reliable and their information relevant/notable to the subject... so why would our handling of links be any different than magazines or any other source? We already have a policy against making personal attacks on users, and a controversial practice of sometimes removing such attacks... why did we need to re-create this policy specially for links with the controversial 'removal' clause given unwarranted (and disruptive) preference? Due to the highly subjective nature of what is and is not 'harassment' or 'personal attacks' reversion of these was never given an exemption for 3RR purposes... why did that change when 'harassment' and 'attacks' through external links was added to the consideration? The resulting (disputed) changes to WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:3RR to make removal of personal attacks not subject to 3RR effectively elevates Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks from rejected proposal to policy which has been enforced by blocks. Apply the long established policies and principles to external links and all the confusion and over-reaching of these 'new' processes goes away. --CBD 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Concur strongly with the rationale (if not confident with the conclusion).LessHeard vanU 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is impermissible to post an attack, it is impermissible to take the attack offsite and link it. We don't do POV forks, and we don't link to POV forks taken offsite. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question CBD writes, "We already have a policy that if a user posts personally identifying info it gets removed and the user blocked or warned." Is this true? Does this policy apply to article namespace and links? If that is clear and unambiguous and not under debate, I agree. But many of the principles above suggest to me that this is not the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK#Protection and WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information. --CBD 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this principle -- a link to, say, an article which dogmatically argues for a certain view printed in a peer-reviewed academic journal might well be considered a reliable source regarding the view which it advocates and an acceptable external link. Imbalanced articles of this nature are quite common in peer-reviewed journals covering topics in the social sciences. Yet, under this principle, links to imbalanced articles would be banned, as their content would blatantly violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. We cannot afford to uncritically extend all of Misplaced Pages's "content and behavioural policies" to the content contained in external links. Restrictions on external link content should be considered individually. John254 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou shalt not excessively annoy others, but thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.

25) The FidoNet policy, from dialup bulletin board system days, had this as its cornerstone (section 9.1 of the linked document). This is a good principle to apply here too; one should avoid doing things that one has reason to believe are likely to be construed as an attack unless there's a very compelling overriding reason, but at the same time, one should not go out of one's way to construe something as an attack if, under an assumption of good faith, it does not appear to be intended as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems like a good principle, and one that's consistent with our own "Assume Good Faith" and "Don't Be a Dick". *Dan T.* 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of external links

26) Per Misplaced Pages:External links: ''Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. From the lead of that policy:

Misplaced Pages articles can include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. External link sections shouldn't be a compendium of everything interesting people have said on the topic. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable

27) WP:NPOV is listed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a non-negotiable issue at m:Foundation issues. In the past, Misplaced Pages projects have been forcibly shut down for failing to adhere to this policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Factually true. Combines with next principle to make the main point. Phil Sandifer 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. *Dan T.* 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Process must be followed

28) The declaration that all editorial content must be decided via the wiki process is a non-negotiable issue proscribed by the Wikimedia Foundation. No policy may supercede it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, per m:Foundation issues. Phil Sandifer 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. *Dan T.* 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "wiki process"? Without a better definition, this principle doesn't really accomplish anything, and in fact is probably counterproductive. -Amarkov moo! 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to bring that up with the Foundation - their exact words are "The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content" Phil Sandifer 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Penumbra of NPOV

29) WP:NPOV states that all significant views must be represented fairly and without bias. Many of our other content policies are implicit in this mandate, which requires complete and careful coverage of all subjects. This is the basic mission of the site, and cannot be overridden by any policy, regardless of numerical consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the key point - encyclopedic completeness trumps all. That does not mean that we must always link to attack sites, but it certainly means that a blind declaration that we must never do so without any reference to questions fo article content cannot possibly be policy, no matter what. Phil Sandifer 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm sure this would be relevant if anyone had ever produced an example of an attack site that was a reliable source for anything. Sure, some people have foolishly interpreted sites which personalise an individual dispute as a sideline, as attack sites; they are simply wrong and need to be told so (principle 2 above does this, by saying what is meant by the original MONGO principle). As it stands I've not seen a single example of a link which has been removed and not reinstated by consensus, where the link is a reliable source for anything. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely see where you're going with this objection - it seems very much like your objection to this principle is "it matches community practice when links have been inserted." Phil Sandifer 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, Phil's readin gof NPOV is highly selective and biased. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. Phil Sandifer 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether or not this is true for Phil, but I think it's quite an important and noteworthy point that WP:NPOV can indeed be interpreted in an non-NPOV way. —  22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. NPOV is a basic, fundamental principle. *Dan T.* 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Free as in beer

30) Misplaced Pages is free as in beer, not free as in speech.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some people seem to be coming to this from an ideological position that Misplaced Pages must allow freedom of speech. No, we are under no such obligation. Terms such as "chilling", "censorship", "suppression", "muzzle" - all these are actively harmful to the formation of consensus, rooted in dogma and an over assumption of bad faith. What we are dealing with here is not the right of people to free speech on their websites, it's the right of people to bring their or other people's free speech here. In truth you have precisely two enforceable rights: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Misplaced Pages is not free speech. We are allowed to restrict the actions of others, and we are subject to restrictions ourselves. We may not harass, we may not attack, we may not make legal threats, we may not defame, and if we do we are likely to be shown the door. This is not about asserting an absolute right to link attack sites: no such right exists. It will always be possible for egregious linking to attack sites to be treated with great severity, and nobody would want it otherwise I hope. It's about where we draw the line. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "free" in Misplaced Pages's self-description actually refers to Free content, which is a concept not entirely like free speech or beer, but which is actually closer to the former since it refers more specifically to the right to do anything one likes with the content rather than the right to get it without paying money (though the latter usually is true as well). You're right, though, that constitutional rights don't directly apply within the community. *Dan T.* 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While our policies place many restrictions on what editors may write on Misplaced Pages, both in talk space and article space, they need to be free to work within those limits. They might be hyperbolic terms, but "chilling effect," "censorship" and "muzzling," can have real meanings on Misplaced Pages - especially where NPOV is concerned. ShaleZero 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of an attack site

31) The definition of an attack site, as meant by principle 3 in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO is: a site which systematically engages in harassment, outing or attacks against named Misplaced Pages editors. As a matter of clarification, it was not intended that this would cover a website whose priniciple business is entirely independent of Misplaced Pages but has some spillover from a past Misplaced Pages dispute. Sites named in this case which are attack sites include: Encyclopedia Dramatica, antisocialmedia, Misplaced Pages Review. Sites which do not constitute attack sites include michaelmoore.com, overstock.com, donmurphy,net

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The hundred pound gorilla. Attack sites do exist, the MONGO RFAr unquestionably and justly restricted wilful linking to such sites, and yet we have disputes centred in some cases on sites which manifestly are not attack sites, in an apparent attempt to weaken the prohibition on linking to harassment content. This clarifies the principle in the MONGO arbitration without removing it and without impacting on the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest attempt to gerrymander a definition that will take in the sites offensive to the Clique but not do any collateral damage elsewhere, but it won't work; actually, Encyclopedia Dramatica does not focus on Misplaced Pages or "outing" at all; it just does such things as a side effect of its focus on tasteless, immature humor. Misplaced Pages Review focuses on criticizing Misplaced Pages, often baselessly, where attacking particular individuals is just one consequence of its main thrust of having a forum for varied views about Misplaced Pages. *Dan T.* 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This definition would still allow the removal of "reliable sites", "notable sites", and "useful sites". If you're confident that no such sites exist or could ever exist, then add the words "Non-notable, unreliable, and non-useful" to the definition, to prevent the kind of "misidentifications" that have cropped up in the past. If you would want an attack site purged even if it were a reliable, notable, and useful source, then that is incompatible with my conception of NPOV. --Alecmconroy 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So there's this site, whose focus is strange obscene things they call "humor". Since they are very liberal about including things, there are some attacks on Misplaced Pages editors. One of these editors doesn't like that, so he makes some edits there. However, the folks over on the other site link him to his Misplaced Pages account, and then features the article about him on the front page. Now, this seems to just be "spillover from a past dispute", so the "humor" site shouldn't be considered an attack site, correct? Oops, I just described the circumstances that caused ED links to be banned. Guess the definition doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "linking to attack site"

31b) "Linking to an attack site" is a bad-faith edit made with the intention of harrassing fellow editors by linking to a page which is non-notable, unreliable, and decreases the quality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I oppose the whole "attack site" terminology, but if we really want to have something like attack sites, this would be the way to do it. Focus on CONDUCT, not CONTENT. Limit it to bad-faith edits which degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. We can't redefine "to link" as "to link in bad faith with intent to harass". Adding a bunch of conditions onto the definition of a common verb is just confusing. -Amarkov moo! 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{proposed principle}

32)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

{proposed principle}

33)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

{proposed principle}

34)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

{proposed principle}

35)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) In April 2007, the proposal Misplaced Pages:Attack sites was created. It was quickly rejected by the community. Later, similar content was added to the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy, in a section titled external links. This section has been the subject of extensive debate, and various disputes have arised about the applicability of the policy in articles when linking to off-wiki sites that criticise Wikipedians.

1.1) In April 2007, the proposal Misplaced Pages:Attack sites was created. It was quickly rejected by the community. Later, similar content was added to the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy, in a section titled external links. This section has been the subject of extensive debate, and various disputes have arised about the applicability of the policy in articles when linking to off-wiki sites that criticise Wikipedians (such as Making Light, Michaelmoore.com, and antisocialmedia.net).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think some of the specific debates - Making Light, Michaelmoore.com, and antisocialmedia.net - need to also be mentioned as loci of the dispute. Phil Sandifer 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This dispute involves antisocialmedia.net and only that Overstock.com corporate smear site. I've never heard of Making Light, and I posted once in favor of including the Michaelmoore.com link. The latter was and is not an "attack site" in any way, shape or form and did not harass a Misplaced Pages editor as such. It was critical of a lawyer who acknowledged editing on Misplaced Pages. In any event, I believe that is the subject of a separate arbitration and it has no relationship to this one. The Michaelmoore.com reversion wars were a complex mess in and of themselves and are the subject of a separate arbitration case. --Mantanmoreland 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, could be improved. Melsaran (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"This dispute", as stated in the opening of the case, may have been directly inspired by the Overstock / Antisocialmedia issue, but it's definitely not limited to it; the clear intent and effect is to examine the entire issue of the "BADSITES" pseudo-policy and its relatives, and it should not be narrowed in scope from this. *Dan T.* 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.1 per Phil's suggestion. Melsaran (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

2) The website known as Encyclopedia Dramatica has numerous articles that supposedly identify the real life identities of some Misplaced Pages editors. Many of these same articles have misleading and/or slanderous accusations that have little or no basis in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If sites other than antisocialmedia are to be discussed, this site should be and not "michaelmoore.com" which is not an "attack site."--Mantanmoreland 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but so far as I've seen, almost nobody actually wants to link to Encyclopedia Dramatica. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

One fish, two fish, red herring, blue fish. ED is a horridly unreliable source, so it would only be accepted as a link in an article about itself. Since the article is most likely not coming back, as shown by multiple deletion reviews, this is really a non-issue. Let's focus on the sites that are actually being revert-warred over and not insert this largely irrelevant finding into the fray. Picaroon (t) 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...I think it is important to reaffirm that this website is still just as despicable as it was a year in a half ago.--MONGO 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is irrelevant here. Melsaran (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant in that it was the canonical example in the original arbitration. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is not relevant to this arbitration. Melsaran (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive or sensible to claim any particular site to be "not relevant" to this case, since this case is attempting to discuss the broad concept of "attack site" links in general, and should hence involve discussion of all the various instances where something has or has not been construed to be such a site. That said, ED is a relatively peripheral instance here, since none of the recent conflicts over site links have actually involved it. *Dan T.* 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, the original cause of the MONGO arbitration principle, which is the thing cited by some here. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They're a "parody" site that has made the editorial decision to aim for tastelessness rather than humor, unlike Uncyclopedia. Its entire style and tone is very immature. For instance, last I checked, its article on Harry Potter focused on films of jerks shouting spoilers at people waiting in line for the last book of the series. That's disgusting... but if we make policy based on a desire to attack those guys for their bad taste, we're dragging ourselves down to their level. *Dan T.* 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just a finding proposal that I think needs to be clarified again. The MONGO arbitration case was about ED and links to it and is the root of why there has been exansion of the argument about linking or not linking to specific websites.--MONGO 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my french, but how the hell is a site that posts the location of a minor to within a mile "parody"? Will 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is currently not a reliable or notable source for anything except (possibly) uncontroversial information about itself... and since it as a whole has been judged not notable there is no article about it for such links to be made on. In short... our existing notability and reliable sources policies already prevent all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica in article space. Our existing personal attacks and harassment policies (before the disputed 'external links' revisions to them) already prevent links to such on Encyclopedia Dramatica in discussions. There is thus no need for any special rules or restrictions. Long established policy already has it covered. As such, enacting special rules only introduces room for 're-interpretation' and changes to our guiding principles and established consensus. If Encyclopedia Dramatica were to eventually become notable in some way (e.g. some nut cited their 'George W. Bush' page as the reason for an assassination attempt) then we should be absolutely free to link to it under the existing policies. Thus, while the above finding is true, IMO it serves only to demonstrate why there has been an emotional backlash and efforts to 'redefine policy' in ways that have resulted in significant ongoing disruption. --CBD 10:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review

3) The website Misplaced Pages Review is primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Misplaced Pages contributors. Some of those who post to Misplaced Pages Review are editors that have been properly banned from Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So? Phil Sandifer 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Actually we could say justlyor properly banned. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And nobody has ever been unjustly or improperly banned from Misplaced Pages, have they? And if they ever were, they'd have the decency to sit down and shut up about it rather than do something evil like participate in an "attack site" to talk about it. *Dan T.* 20:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WR is a forum where Misplaced Pages is discussed, generally in a critical manner. Occasionally the criticisms are valid; very often they are unfair and unreasonable. However, Wikipedians are inherently biased on this issue and shouldn't be trusted to objectively determine which is which; there is a value to the existence of an independent site that doesn't run under the same rules as us, ban the same people as us, and let the same clique dominate as us. Is a (justly or unjustly) banned user an "unperson", to be dragged out only for Two Minute Hates and never for consideration of their actual ideas and criticisms? Do we want the next headline about us in Slashdot, or the New York Times, to read "Misplaced Pages censors criticism of itself"? *Dan T.* 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dan T, you keep bringing the argument of "criticism of Misplaced Pages", when this arbCom case is not about that. It is about slander against community members for the only reason that they are editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's about the (ab)use of policies governing "slander against community members" in a way that results in the censoring of criticism of Misplaced Pages itself, as when an entire site or forum engaging in such criticism is declared to be a suppressive person... er, website. *Dan T.* 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. WR is a blog forum that criticises WP as regards perceived violations of WP's principles and general practices by its own contributors; sometimes speculating upon and commenting upon WP editors supposed real life identities in purporting to identify conflicts of interest or other "indiscretions". LessHeard vanU 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ps. Isn't commenting that mostmany WR editors are banned ex-WP editors irrelevant, or does their history provide them with greater reliability?

I did not write "most" I wrote "many". This is just a finding I proposed...and I think for those who are familiar with what gets posted at WR and by whom, it is pretty easy to see that this finding is correct.--MONGO 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've altered the most/many. I think you should clarify your supposed inference that the history of some of the contributors equates a disposition of ill-will toward WP rather than that of being familiar with the procedures and therefore an authority on the workings of this place, if you are determined to keep that part of the proposal. LessHeard vanU 20:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as written, although with reservations that some readers might construe the language to suggest that as an assertion that this is the primary or sole function of WR. Durova 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this saying that it is "primarily a blog forum", or "primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real-life identities of Misplaced Pages contributors"? The former is definitely true, the latter is a lot more controversial. -Amarkov moo! 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as it is a forum and doesnt actually represent the views of any individual or viewpoint. I am baffled as to why the fact that banned users from wikipedia editing there has anything whatsoever to do with wikipedia and it would set a bad precedent were it to do. There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR. We can properly ban users from wikipedia but we cannot censor or in any way try and control their off-site activities merely because they were banned here. Certinaly not all wikipedia reveiwers try to out wikipedians, its a tiny minority on a tiny minority of pages. As a blog it is no good for RS but there is simply no justification for banning it because it contains a tiny number of attacks, and it makes us look completely paranoid and trying to stifle any criticism of wikipedia which is far more damaging to the project. Obviously attack and particularly outing pages from WR should never be linked to, SqueakBox 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. I've been a lurker there for quite some time, and I've seen nothing serious enough for there to be a link ban to that site. ATren 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The statement "Many of those who post to Misplaced Pages Review are editors that have been properly banned from Misplaced Pages." is false, as it's clear from discussions on WP:AN/I that a number of long-standing administrators and other members of the community supported discussion of unblocking the user:Poetlister account as not proper. The word "properly" is debatable in any context (because it is inherently POV), and a good number of WR forum users have never been blocked, let alone permabanned. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The loudest voices there oftentimes do come from people who have been banned from here. Regardless, changed "many" to "some".--MONGO 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring over external links

4) Websites labeled as "attack sites" by some editors, a label looked on as irrelevant/not grounds for removal in the context of articles by other editors, have been the subject of multiple revert wars. Examples: at Judd Bagley, Overstock.com, at Michael Moore.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed. Michael Moore.com has nothing to do with this. It is the subject of a separate arbitration. No editors from the Michael Moore controversy are involved in this, and lumping in that website with antisocialmedia is absurd. Also this omis that reversion of links to antisocialmedia.net was in accordance with WP:NPA. --Mantanmoreland 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Michael Moore.com has nothing to do with this." It was removed citing a concern that it was an attack site. I think that's what this case is all about. "It is the subject of a separate arbitration." Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed_decision - that proposed decision seems to barely address the attack site issue. Its mostly about THF and DavidShankBone's conduct. "No editors from the Michael Moore controversy are involved in this." What happened to MONGO? He seems pretty involved. "umping in that website with antisocialmedia is absurd". How so? They're both attack sites, aren't they? Picaroon (t) 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged attack sites, that is. *Dan T.* 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm sure there have been more; what was KamrynMatika blocked for again? Wasn't one of these. Picaroon (t) 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A WR link in the Essjay controversy article. Zurishaddai 05:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See the evidence page, where I've posted more details on that case (and some other cases). *Dan T.* 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This case is about the general concept of "attack sites" and the varying beliefs about how policy applies to them; it is not and should not be limited to one particular case, since the original MONGO ruling (though originally intended to be limited to one particular case) has subsequently been cited and applied as if it were a more general rule. *Dan T.* 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative endorsement - I'll agree with the premise that this has some overlap with the Michael Moore controversy. Part of this case's function is to determine how far the concept of an attack site extends. Durova 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is only one part of the issue. I just find it concerning that multiple longstanding editors editwarred on multiple articles, each side citing a conflicting policy. One of which is a pillar and a foundation issue, the other of which has the relevant section based on an arbitration committee decision. Picaroon (t) 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope that part of this case is to conclude that 'determining how far the concept of an attack site extends' is an un-needed and un-wanted goal. Ditch the concept entirely, look at whether linked pages violate Misplaced Pages's long-standing policies, and we're done. Labeling something an 'attack site', by whatever standards, and creating special rules for such gives the appearance of bias (especially when the 'attack sites' are all critical of Misplaced Pages) and inherently introduces conflicts between our normal practices in regards to reliability, notability, et cetera and the special restrictions for 'attack sites'. --CBD 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of references to antisocialmedia.net

5) References to antisocialmedia.net were removed from Overstock.com and Judd Bagley as mandated by the explicit language of WP:NPA, which states: "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This was the basis for removal of the references to ASM.--Mantanmoreland 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not true on its face, since the reference (though unlinked) to the site is there now. *Dan T.* 14:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's correct that there were further reversions. However, this finding would just deal with the basis for removal of the references. --Mantanmoreland 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed the reasoning used to remove the link. Phil Sandifer 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

5.1) References to antisocialmedia.net were removed from Overstock.com and Judd Bagley as the site contains substantial attack content and is not a reliable source for any encyclopaedic content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

RS didn't factor into this as I understand it - asm was never used as a source in either article. Phil Sandifer 15:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a factor. A good proposal.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative. I don't see any proof that NPA is being applied to article space, the link is simply junk. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Determining whether a link is junk is a content dispute, out of the jurisdiction of ArbCom and not to be based on subjective feelings about whom the link attacks. *Dan T.* 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom can distinguish between a website with a legitimate purpose and corporate-underwritten junk.--Mantanmoreland 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But that would be irrelevant to any issue that it is proper for them to decide. *Dan T.* 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, linking to 'corporate underwritten junk' often IS a 'legitimate purpose'... see the links to such on the articles for every major corporation on the planet. As to the site 'not being a reliable source for any encyclopedic content'... It is certainly a reliable source for the nature of its own contents, which is precisely what it was being used for. The connection of that content with Overstock.com and Judd Bagley was certainly relevant, notable, and could be reliably sourced... thus, the only reason these links were removed, as stated at the time (and in your original proposal above), was the disputed wording which had been added to WP:NPA. Itself just a recasting of the rejected BADSITES proposal. --CBD 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Links were never an issue, as they were never added to either article. The only editor, as far as I can see, who has added a link to antisocialmedia and hence to personal attacks on your fellow editors is yourself, by adding a link to antisocialmedia in this discussion. As for "junk" links, they are removed all the time, and WP:EL lists numerous varieties of junk that has to be removed. To argue that Misplaced Pages is less neutral by not being a garbage dump is just nonsense. --Mantanmoreland 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that you no longer argue that simply referring to a web site's name should be subject to the same restrictions as linking to it? I converted the HTML addresses being discussed to links simply as a matter of habit, but I'd also assumed that the issue was dead and gone since the site is now referenced in the article and repeatedly on this page - by yourself amongst others. You had claimed that both should be equally banned, but now seem to object only to the links. As to 'garbage'... IMO Stormfront is 'garbage', but I'd oppose efforts to censor that too. NPOV. You think it is garbage. I think it is garbage. Misplaced Pages presents it without judgment because it is notable. --CBD 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

antisocialmedia.net

6) Antisocialmedia.net is a website that engages in sharp personal attacks on critics and perceived adversaries of Overstock.com and its CEO, Patrick Byrne. Its targets range from members of the media to private citizens posting on Internet message boards. Among the principal activities of the site are attacks upon and efforts to "out" and disparage individual Misplaced Pages editors and administrators. The site was initially anonymous, but newspapers and blogs revealed that it was operated by Judd Bagley, an executive of Overstock. Bagley now admits to running the site, and he and Byrne deny an official connection between the site and Overstock.com. The site has received extensive unfavorable press coverage, with Bloomberg referring to the site's "creepy strategy" and other critics characterizing Bagley in the New York Times as "nauseating" and "Sleazy McSleaze." Bagley had also on previous occasions not connected with overstock.com created other similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" in mainstream investment media.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is largely adapted from the Wiki article on Overstock.com.--Mantanmoreland 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So? The issue under debate is not whether Mr. Bagley or Mr. Byrne are naughty or nice. It's whether it makes any sense to impose link bans regarding sites that may be of some relevance to an issue under discussion, and I think banning links would be a bad idea even if Osama bin Laden ran the site in question in cooperation with Hitler's brain in a jar. *Dan T.* 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As a finding of fact, this is an accurate characterisation of ASM. It does rather invite the response "And?..." though. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

... and that's the website that is at issue. It is not Mother Goose.com or Michaelmoore.com but an astroturfing site. The odious content of the site puts it in a class by itself. If other sites are dealt with, the ArbCom, in my view, needs to differentiate between them and ASM.--Mantanmoreland 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A class by itself? It's more "odious" than Stormfront? We link to odious websites. Always have, and hopefully always will. We're an encyclopedia, not the morals police. How 'odious' some may find a website to be is irrelevant... and the ArbCom absolutely should not "differentiate" on that basis. Misplaced Pages doesn't make judgments about what to include or not based on how 'odious' our users find it. If something is notable it is included. Otherwise it isn't. BADSITES and its progeny arguing that there should be a different scale for 'odious' material is a blatant violation of our bedrock NPOV directive. --CBD 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does stormfront "out" the real life identities of our contributors?--MONGO 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. We all recognize that if a site like the Stormfront is notable, we should link to their organizational page-- even if that organization supports racism and genocide. If the Westboro Baptist Church is notable, we link to their organizational page, even if they scream "God Hates Fags". But you'd have us believe that Michael Moore should be banned for hate speech if he criticizes one of our editors by name? --Alecmconroy 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about hate speech...This is not an all or nothing issue...some websites that actively and routinely engage in the efforts to identify the real life identities of our editors have no basis ot be linked to. Harassing people for removing links to such websites is ridiculous....these websites are generally only blog forums anyway, and the need to link to them is almost never necessary. It is odd the way people are misconstruing the differences between efforts to "out" our editors and websites that routinely engage in attacking groups but do not routinely engage in outting efforts.--MONGO 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the difference? Hate groups routinely harass people they disagree with (or just hate irrationally), and it's not like they're unique. Did we remove all links to Michelle Malkin's site from the encyclopedia when she posted the names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers of college students who had protested military recruitment on their campus? It was clearly harassment - they got death threats as a result - but not only did the link to her site remain, Michelle Malkin currently includes a link to that specific post, still complete with names, addresses and telephone numbers. How is that any different from linking to the "outing" of Misplaced Pages authors? If the only difference is that one group has Misplaced Pages accounts and the other does not, how can you square that with NPOV? ShaleZero 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the links on that article "outting" our contributor's real life identities? If so, then I support removing the offensive link(s). If Michelle Malkin is attacking people but does not say, ie...MONGO is actually Mongo T. Jones...he lives at ....and his phone number is....and his email address is....The difference is we cannot control what any other website does, but we can control linking to them if they are routinely engaged in outting efforts on our contributors.--MONGO 05:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask again. What is the substantive difference between posting the name, address and contact information of a person with intent to harass, and posting the name, address and contact information of a person who happens to be a Misplaced Pages contributor with intent to harass? Maybe you'll enlighten me, but I can't see how NPOV allows us to link to one and purge all reference to the other like it's on fire. Both are harassment, and both are beyond our control (just as we can't make Malkin's harassment cease to exist by deleting the link, just because we don't link to a Wikipedian's outing doesn't mean it never happened, or that the site isn't still there and accessible to people who would care enough to look.) ShaleZero 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We have editorial control over our website and an obligation to our contributors to not link to anything that outs them against their wishes.--MONGO 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But the outings are not occuring on our Web site. We cannot erase them from the Internet by deleting links. As to the obligation, you're begging the question. I asked for a reason to change the content of the encyclopedia to protect editors from harassment when we don't do it for anyone else, and you said it's because we should protect editors. Tell me why they're special.

Also, one of us should probably reset the tabs soon. ShaleZero 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Stormfront has had message threads dealing with a purported "Jewish conspiracy" on Misplaced Pages and the need to defeat it... if they didn't "out" any Wikipedians in those threads, it's not likely from lack of desire or inclination, or out of any sort of moral scruples. Not that I make a habit of checking out that site, but I think somebody once linked to such a thread in the course of discussion either here or on wikien-l... making people aware of the stuff that's going on pertaining to Misplaced Pages, including on "hate sites", is in my opinion a perfectly valid reason to link to them. *Dan T.* 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an essential finding of fact, given that this case resolves around ASM. It is not a Unified Field Theory of Website Odiousness. If you wish to list all the websites that are less odious than ASM, go ahead but it has no relevancy at all to this discussion.--Mantanmoreland 14:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo that; I also fail to see what's so uniquely evil about that site. Annoying, certainly, if you're one of the ones targeted by it, but does it really deserve to be the subject of Orwellian Two Minute Hates, and make its author into the new Official Arch-Enemy of Misplaced Pages, supplanting other contenders like Daniel Brandt? Why? *Dan T.* 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore

8) Useful encyclopedic content was deleted from the Michael Moore article when Moore's site criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the content was ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Alecmconroy 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I should note that, at least at the time when the name and picture of the Wikipedian were there, the site did meet the technical requirements of the pseudo-policy in question, so if applying the policy in such a case leads to absurd results, then the policy itself is absurd. *Dan T.* 20:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no "useful encyclopaedic content" was removed. A valid supporting external link, however, was removed. Please try to maintain a distinction between advocacy and stating the facts. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misused the terminology. How is a valid supporting link that is part of the article page not considered encyclopedia content? --Alecmconroy 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

8) Useful encyclopedic content was deleted from the Teresa Nielsen Hayden article when a forum administered by Hayden criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the content was ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

--Alecmconroy 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And there was yet another attempt by a different editor to remove the site a few months later after a nasty comment posting (that got "disemvowelled" by the site owner) in a different thread. *Dan T.* 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Useful encyclopaedic content? Or a valid supporting external link? There's quite a difference. I think it was just a link. Not such a huge big deal, regardless of the merits of removal. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

9) Useful encyclopedic content was deleted from the Don Murphy article when a forum administered by Murphy criticized a wikipedia editor by name. This resulted in edit warring, after which the content was ultimately restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Alecmconroy 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I should note that the site does meet the technical requirements of the pseudo-policy in question just as much as other "attack sites", given that his message board carries grudges against Misplaced Pages, tries to "out" editors, and has apparently led to real harrassment. But apparently the policy is really only intended to be applied to sites that have offended members of the "Clique", not normal editors. *Dan T.* 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Three things: first, it wasn't "useful encycloapedic content", it was a valid supporting external link, a different matter. Second, it didn't just criticise the editor, as I understand it, it printed his name, phone number and home address - that's certainly what they did to me. Third, this is not an "attack site". This is actually the principle that needs clearing up: the essential difference between a site which is a reliable source for encyclopaedic content but contains some elements of a dispute taken to excess, and a site which sets out to harass, attack and out Misplaced Pages editors repeatedly and without being a reliable source for content. It's a question of where to draw the line. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good faith questions raised

8) Good faith questions have, at times, been raised about editors' conduct based on evidence brought up at attack sites. In the past, controversy has arisen as people, also in good faith, remove links to the evidence under policies against attack sites. As our policy on personal attacks applies to bad faith edits only, these removals were inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Evidence?" Or "allegations?" Remember, this was sparked by an evidence-free assertion which is not only complete bollocks, it's also being presented solely in order to try to gain advantage in a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in the case I'm thinking of - have a look at my evidence section. I wrote this proposal with some deliberate sketchiness out of respect for people's privacy. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppressing evidence or allegations, valid or not, in such cases only promotes the impression that there's an "untouchable clique" who are immune to any challenge of their behavior, while they are free to make any accusations they want (many of which also prove unfounded) against less-favored editors. *Dan T.* 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you are envisioning a practice of only restricting links to sites which endanger our users and would seldom, if ever, need to be used. This is a reasonable ideal, but IMO has no attainable implementation. You apparently didn't know about the 'we are not subject to 3RR' codicil which has been written into WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:3RR (possibly others). You suggested that the Michael Moore thing was an aberration quickly resolved... but in fact it was widely pushed for several days. You say it isn't about censorship... but time and again it has been a case of users removing links to sites they don't like. As actually used this is not the practice you describe it to be... and I don't think it ever could be. It's too subjective, too open to 'interpretation', and contains an inherent contradiction of core principles. We need to protect our users, yes... but we've always had ways of doing that - granted, they sometimes worked just as poorly as this does, but without all the other baggage. --CBD 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Michael Moore issue was quickly resolved when the webmaster there took down the direct links to Misplaced Pages on this website, which linked right into open pages, that was bascially an open invitation to vandalize. Websites like ED and WR have been engaged in a longstanding effort to harass our editors by trying to identify the real life identities of some of us...against some of our editor's wishes.--MONGO 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wider consensus was needed

9) The policy that links to attack sites should be removed, and that such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule runs counter to a number of long-standing community decisions. Before altering these policies in such a dramatic way, editors should have sought a wider consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence and principle I'll add above in a moment. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No it doesn't. I'm not aware of anyone asserting as policy that removal of attack sites in article space is immune from 3RR, but please point out which "long-standing community policy" mitigates against removal of links which harass, defame or out Misplaced Pages editors. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The rejection of WP:RPA. But you're right - decisions is a better phrase here. And look at WP:NPA - it explicitly says "these removals are not subject to the 3RR." Phil Sandifer 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And look at the evidence page for many cases where link removal was intended, and look at the edit summaries in the ensuing edit wars; there are several comments to the effect that "I'll keep removing this forever, and 3RR doesn't apply to me!" *Dan T.* 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Every straw poll I've ever seen on a "BADSITES"-related issue has come out overwhelmingly in the no-censorship direction, but the supporting clique has labored mightily to prevent any true show of consensus from developing on the issue, since they know they'll lose that way. Instead, they do lots of hand-waving about how they're just supporting "common sense" and "decent behavior", and, besides, the ArbCom has ruled so consensus doesn't matter, nyahh nyahh nyahh! *Dan T.* 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of NPA to include content issues was inappropriate

10) The intended alteration of WP:NPA to restrict article content was made without consideration of a number of policies, including WP:NPOV, which is listed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a non-negotiable policy, as well as without regard for the basic goal of the project to provide all significant information on encyclopedic subjects. This expansion of the policy was inappropriate and against the larger spirit of our policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'll add evidence for this one probably tomorrow evening. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. *Dan T.* 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites in content

11) No examples have been advanced of sites which are, by consensus, both attack sites and reliable sources and therefore appropriate to link in articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely oppose. This repeats the toxic premise that some sources are necessarily reliable or unreliable, when in fact reliability comes from context. Phil Sandifer 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as the Clique members are free to rejigger the definitions of both "attack site" and "reliable source" every time a potential counterexample comes along. *Dan T.* 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise. You won't find a site which is not a reliable source for its own content, if nothing else. Most things which have been labeled 'attack sites' are not notable enough for their content to be relevant, but there have been several which arguably were and a few that unquestionably qualified. The purging of all links to Michael Moore's blog is the most obvious case, but there are others. Essjay's identity was reported in major newspapers all over the world (thankfully no one has taken that as grounds to ban them all as attack sites), but the revelation of this information to the world media came out of discussions on Misplaced Pages Review. That's a notable fact still included in the article... but a user linking to a reliable source (the Misplaced Pages Review thread itself) for that fact was reverted, threatened, blocked, and left in disgust. That was a reliable source for the information. It was notable and relevant to the topic. It revealed nothing more than was being trumpeted from the pages of The New York Times. Yet a good user was driven from the project solely because too many people put the desire to censor Misplaced Pages Review, and yes it absolutely is censorship, over building an impartial encyclopedia. That page was relevant, notable, and a reliable source for the information... but because it existed on a site which had been 'labeled' it was verboten. Declaring sites unusable, regardless of how 'bad' they may be, inherently handcuffs editors and damages the neutrality of the encyclopedia. It's a bad practice. The goal of protecting editors is a good one, but this method of pursuing that goal is ineffective, rife for abuse, and itself detrimental. --CBD 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My blog is a reliable source in an article about me or my company, and if I have a Ph.D in a subject, it may be a reliable source on that; it still won't be a reliable source on Albanian politics. Reliability depends on why the site is being sourced. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are never "attack sites"

11b) No examples have been advanced of reliable sources which, by consensus, should be removed because of their attacks or outings of Misplaced Pages Editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Variant wording of 11. That all the purported "attack sites" which are notable/reliable have been added back in by consensus seems to me to suggest that there is a consensus against the practice of removing otherise useful links-- even if they do attack wikipedians. --Alecmconroy 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all a matter of self-serving definitions... start by deciding whether you want the link to stay or go away based on personal, subjective feelings, then twiddle around the policy definitions and their interpretations until you can claim they support whatever you decide. *Dan T.* 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

12) Some editors have mistakenly identified sites which are reliable sources but contain a small amount of inappropriate material, residue of past Misplaced Pages disputes with the subject of the site, as attack sites. While this misidentification was in good faith, it was an error and is not in line with the intent of the MONGO arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... those people failed to read the parts of the policy that are written in invisible ink, which state that "only sites that have offended Clique members are to be construed as attack sites, not sites that confine their attacks to non-Clique peons." (And Mistaken Identity was a decent Kim Carnes album and song.) *Dan T.* 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

15) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Everybody involved is sent to their room with no dessert

1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go to bed half an hour early and refrain from dessert for 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just to make clear that we're not proposing any, you know, real sanctions. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This was a rather minor editing dispute as these things go, and everybody calmed down pretty quickly. However, I think it needs to be made clear that when it is perceived that the explicit provisions of a policy are "broken" or flawed, the place to resolve that is at the policies themselves and not by removing edits carried out in accordance with the "flawed" policy. (Just that general principle, nothing aimed at any particular editor, as everyone was acting in good faith yadda yadda.)--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This sanction is subject to overruling by their mommies. *Dan T.* 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Loss of WP editing time by early bedtime is recovered by non availability of dessert. Strike proposal as having no net effect? LessHeard vanU 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new here. Lots of cases end without editors getting their just desserts. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, per my favorite TV show being on at 9:30 tonight. You're not even my real dad. ShaleZero 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My people are the people of the dessert. - T.E. Lawrence, picking up his fork. Durova 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He was known to confuse the two, which is why he is so thin in his photographs.--Mantanmoreland 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you Shaw? LessHeard vanU 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaw, I'm Shaw. *Dan T.* 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody involved is sent to the desert

1.1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go into a desert for a length of time to be determined (24 hours? 40 days and 40 nights? 40 years?).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think taking one "s" out of "dessert" yields something that will do better for giving humility to the participants, encourage meditation about the issues involved, and, presuming that it's a desert without WiFi hotspots, will keep them from making trouble on Misplaced Pages for a while. *Dan T.* 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the word 'Rutabaga' is to be permitted anywhere on Misplaced Pages under any circumstances

2) I've heard of somebody who had a freak farming accident as a child, and just barely escaped being crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas, and as a result is traumatized by any mention of the offending vegetable. Or maybe I just made it up, but you've got to Assume Good Faith about it. Anyway, this alleged person feels personally attacked and emotionally injured every time he or she encounters the word "rutabaga", so we should err on the side of protecting the feelings of our potential editors (since this alleged person might possibly decide to become a Misplaced Pages editor at some indeterminate time in the future) by proactively removing anything that might cause such emotional harm. Thus, the word "rutabaga" should be banned from Misplaced Pages. It's possible that the application of other policies might compel the word to be used to a limited degree, like on the Rutabaga article itself (though it might be desirable to recast it using some synonym, if a suitable other word can be found), but certainly its use can be flatly banned on unrelated article pages and in user, talk, and project space. It's the least we can do to promote human decency in a common sense way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. And, once this case closes, this page should be refactored to remove the offending word in the above section. Maybe it could be replaced with a less offensive word like "pedophile". *Dan T.* 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This might very well be the most disruptive point proposal I have ever seen on an arbcom case.--MONGO 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the editor in question who feels traumatized by mention of the word "rutabaga" also happens to be a prominent admin here in the project, who has written much of Misplaced Pages's current policy, and once used a sock to vote twice in a Featured Article candidate review and then concealed that she did that during her subsequent RfA, then we should especially protect her by banning any website that mentions that word. Of course. Cla68 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: