Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:22, 18 September 2007

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Dtobias

Admin enforces expansionist interpretation of past ArbCom ruling to favor one side in content dispute

User:KamrynMatika added a link in the article on Essjay controversy to a message thread on Misplaced Pages Review in which the irregularities of Essjay's claims about himself were first publicly examined. (Diff) This thread is specifically mentioned in the text of the article, and is an important part of the history of the controversy, so a link to it serves a useful encyclopedic purpose. Kamryn was one of several editors who favored adding the link, while others disagreed. Admin User:ElinorD, a party to this case, intervened inappropriately into this content dispute by blocking Kamryn, citing "Adding links to harassment site after being made aware of ruling". This succeeded in intimidating other editors from adding the link afterward.

A wide variety of stuff has been labeled an 'attack site', and has provoked a wide variety of actions, reactions, and overreactions

Here are just a few of the notable incidents where somebody has tried to label something an "attack site" and purge Misplaced Pages of links or references to it.

• 23 Oct 2006: Fred Bauder altered the spelling of "Encyclopedia Dramatica" (even in non-hyperlinked plain text) in other people's comments in a closed arbitration case, making all the commenters look like illiterates. (diff)
• 06 Apr 2007: A link to Misplaced Pages Review to credit the source of a quote regarding expert retention that had been posted for discussion was removed with a note about "BADSITES", but the quote was left (a possible copyright violation when used without proper credit). (diff)
• 14 Apr 2007: During the course of debate about the WP:BADSITES policy proposal, people sometimes attempted to link to things in sites under discussion; it can be hard making valid points in this area without it. These links were suppressed several times, and sometimes the entire commentary along with it. (diff)
• 24 Apr 2007: Brandt's Misplaced Pages Watch was scoured from the Signpost article about Brandt despite being a relevant reference and being linked already on its own article. (diff)
• 19 May 2007: An attempt was made (but quickly reverted) to take off the link to Kelly Martin's blog on her user page... and that's before she posted the really controversial stuff that came later! (diff)
• 28 May 2007: An attempt was made to get rid of links to Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog, Making Light, from a variety of pages including the article on her. (diff)
• 07 Jun 2007: An edit war attempted (unsuccessfully) to remove links to Wikitruth from the article about the site; in this diff, a threat to block "per Musical Linguist" is given to anybody who dares to revert, and MONGO follows with his own revert later, among others.
• 15 Jun 2007: Various links to Conservapedia within the article about it were mangled with "Redacted per NPA" comments. (diff)
• 23 Jun 2007: In what seems like an overreaction, admin ElinorD deleted revisions of a user page to remove "harrassing material" even from the history; this material apparently consisted of a link to Misplaced Pages Review in a set of links to various viewpoints about Misplaced Pages.
• 27 Jun 2007: ElinorD edited out a link used by KamrynMatika as evidence in an active ArbCom case. Apparently, the line that "It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others" doesn't apply when you're "enforcing" BADSITES. (diff)
• 19 Aug 2007: Perverted Justice, an anti-pedophile site that has criticized Misplaced Pages for not being tough enough on pedophilia advocacy, was the subject of an attempted link removal. (diff)
• 24 Aug 2007: A link to antisocialmedia.net was suppressed from AN/I where it was being used to display evidence of sockpuppetry. (diff) After some edit-warring, it was replaced to a page at another URL that copied the relevant information... and included credit to the originating site, complete with link, so it was really just one more click away from it, but that somehow seemed to satisfy everybody anyway.
• 24 Aug 2007: Michael Moore's official site was removed and edit-warred over. (diff); another diff, including a personal attack against Moore in edit comment!
• 26 Aug 2007: Nielsen Hayden's blog was again the subject of an attempted linkectomy! This time the problem was that somebody (not Nielsen Hayden herself) had left a nasty message deep within the comments section of a blog posting. (diff)
• 06 Sep 2007: An attempt was made to change references to Judd Bagley and his website in the Overstock.com article to vague references to an unnamed executive and site, with the NPA policy cited to justify it; the change did not stick. (diff)
• 06 Sep 2007: Don Murphy's official site was also warred over. (diff)

Evidence presented by Alecmconroy

The application of "NPA/BADSITES/MONGOCASE" to good-faith encyclopedic content has resulted in unnecessary, disruptive edit warring.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

• Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a Hugo-Award Nominated science fiction author. She runs a website entitled "Making Light".
• In Jan '05, the Teresa Nielsen Hayden article is created, with the first edit including a link to her website. . The link remains for two years, surviving several hundred edits.
• Around May 07,a forum on the website contains a post which criticizes a wikipedia editor and used his real name.
• That editor purges the links to her website, calling it an "attack site"
• An edit war ensues.
• Since "Making Light" was used as a reliable source in many articles, such links are purged from the encyclopedia on the ground that "links to attack sites" are forbidden. Widespread edit wars ensue.
  • Patrick Nielsen Hayden
  • Animal hoarding
  • Disemvoweling
  • Roger Elwood
  • Author mill
  • Vanity press
  • John M. Ford
  • Villanelle
  • Jim Baen
  • List of people with narcolepsy
  • Joint Services School of Intelligence
  • Harry Potter influences and analogues
  • Evil Overlord List
  • Former Latter-day Saints
  • The Man Who Melted Jack Dann
• Since "Making Light" was used by wikipedias in discussions about how to improve articles, links were also present in talk pages-- these too were purged from pages like Talk:PYGMIES_%2B_DWARFS_arguments, Talk:PublishAmerica , Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X, Talk:The_Friday_Project , Talk:The_Left_Hand_of_Darkness , Talk:Order_of_the_Eastern_Star.
• Celebrity commentary from author Cory Doctorow: "You appear to be attempting to punish someone who dislikes you by removing references to her site. This seems like retaliation, not an effort to improve Misplaced Pages. What's more, the repeated demand to change something posted to her site seems like extortion, not an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages."
• Page is protected, since then the link has remained included.
• Most importantly-- in the discussion that occurs on ANI, several respected admins suggest that that MONGO/BADSITES/NPA does indeed mandate the removal of the link-- among them are Will Beback, Musical Linguist, SlimVirgin. This suggests that the application of MONGO/BADSITES/NPA to MakingLight was not just a fluke, a random occurance, or a bad-faith vendetta. Rather the edit wars occurred when intelligent administrators acted in good-faith to implement MONGO/BADSITES/NPA. Without further clarification from Arbcom & the community, we should expect incidents like this to repeat themselves in the future.

Don Murphy

• Don Murphy is notable American film producer whose filmography includes "Natural Born Killers", "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," and "Transformers". Murphy maintains an official website.
• In 2005, an editor creates the "Don Murphy" article, including an external link to Murphy's official site in the very first edit. . The link to Murphy's site remained on the article for the next two years (surviving 250 or so edits).
• Sometime prior to July 2007, Murphy included comments on his website that attack Misplaced Pages and its editors.
• An editor, describing Murphy's site as "attack site against wikipedia editors", purges the link to Murphy's official site.
• A heated and disruptive edit war ensues:
• Ultimately the page is briefly protected, after which the link has remained in the article.

Michael Moore

• Michael Moore is an Academy-Award winning director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, two of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time. Moore maintans an official website.
• In 2002, the Michael Moore article is created, and a link to Moore's official site is inserted. The link to Moores's appears to have remained on the article for the next five years (surviving several thousand edits).
• In August 2007, Moore's official website attacks a Misplaced Pages editor.
• An editor, describing the link as a "harassment link", purges it from the article.
• A heated and disruptive edit war ensues:
• Ultimately, the link is restored.
• Most importantly, several respected editors & admins suggested that that MONGO/BADSITES/NPA did indeed mandate the removal of the links to Michael Moore-- among them are MONGO and ElinorD. This suggests that the application of MONGO/BADSITES/NPA to MichaelMoore was not just a fluke, a random occurance, or a bad-faith vendetta. Rather the edit wars occurred when intelligent administrators acted in good-faith to implement MONGO/BADSITES/NPA. Without further clarification from Arbcom & the community, we should expect incidents like this to repeat themselves in the future.

Consensus exists to cover "attack sites" if they are notable

Misplaced Pages Watch

• Misplaced Pages Watch is a website which is highly critical of Misplaced Pages.
• Misplaced Pages Watch meets the definitions of an attack site. A substantial amount of its content is devoted to revealing the real names, home addresses, dates-of-birth, and even photographs of Misplaced Pages editors. (I'm not providing an evidence link for obvious reasons.)
• Misplaced Pages Watch is a notable website-- having been featured in articles by New York Times article, the Associated Press, CNN , etc.
• The editors of Misplaced Pages appear to have reached a consensus to cover (and link to) Misplaced Pages Watch. The Misplaced Pages Watch article has survived multiple AFDs. The article references Misplaced Pages Watch as a source (with link), and the article also provides a link to the site's frontpage.

Wikitruth

• Wikitruth is a website which is highly critical of wikipedia.
• Wikitruth meets the definitions of an attack site. A substantial amount of its content is devoted to outing and humiliating Wikipedians. (I'm not providing an evidence link for obvious reasons.)
• Wikitruth is a notable website. It has been featured in articles by The Village Voice, The Guardian , The Register, , and Slashdot.
• The editors of Misplaced Pages appear to have reached a consensus to cover Wikitruth. The Wikitruth article has survived multiple AFDs. The article refernces Wikitruth as a source multiple times (with links) and the article also provides a link to the site's frontpage.

Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

Policy against attack sites used to impede discussion

On August 25th, the administrator and long-time community member User:Cyde posted to WP:ANI expressing concern about SlimVirgin's past use of multiple accounts. These concerns were prompted by a posting at antisocialmedia.net.

Several other trusted community members, including User:Gmaxwell User:Seraphimblade and User:Messedrocker expressed various degrees of concern about SV's behavior.

It should be noted that, in practice, SlimVirgin did nothing wrong. However, it strains credulity to say that everybody who expressed concern was acting in bad faith, and the issues raised were, for a variety of reasons, things one could reasonably be concerned about.

Despite this, several users removed the link to the antisocialmedia.net post where details of the incident were posted. These included:

User:Crum375:

User:Crockspot: (Note that he also threatened to block people for adding the link, though this threat is mitigated by his not being an administrator)

In the course of the discussion, Gmaxwell provided a link to an alternate site where the relevant evidence was posted. This alternate link was allowed to stand.

This attempt to remove the evidence under discussion, though undoubtedly in good faith, was an impediment to the discussion, as it prevented people from actually looking at the situation and drawing informed conclusions.

Remove personal attacks rejected

WP:NPA currently states that "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." This statement echoes the proposed policy Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks. This policy has previously been declared by the arbitration committee to be "controversial," and to be "used sparingly" .

Despite this long-standing rejection of the policy of removing personal attacks, however, WP:NPA currently not only endorses removing this sub-class of personal attacks in all circumstances, it endorses the defiance of WP:3RR to acheive this, effectively overruling two long-standing community procedures at once - the rejection of RPA and the 3RR, in addition to the damage it does to policies about writing encyclopedia articles. My research has overturned no serious effort to reach out to the larger community in formulating this radical new policy.

Evidence presented by Guy

Dan Tobias does not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked

Here, Dan apparently considers that liking to sites which harass, out, attack and otherwise cause distress to Misplaced Pages editors, is of no real importance. While satirical, this indicates to me a profoundly inappropriate response to very genuine concerns. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Will Beback

Regarding Making Light

This account is to clarify the evidence posted above in #Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

The owner of the blog Making Light, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and I had been involved in a previous editing dispute regarding unsourced derogatory information she wished to add to a biography of a living person. She later initiated a thread on the blog that included derogatory remarks about me from herself and other editors. After some time and more remarks, one of the members of the thread found a deleted edit from Encyclopedia Dramatica that speculated on my identity, and he posted both the link and the name. Nielsen Hayden is noted for her assiduous censorship of blog postings (see disemvowelling) so it was not a situation of an inattentative blogger leaving an unseen comment. Combined with the personal attacks, I interpreted the attack site language of WP:HARASS to cover this case. I proceeded to remove the links to the blog (most of which were not suitable as sources anyway), although other editors immediately reverted my deletions. Following a short revert war the matter moved to AN/I and private email. After requests from myself and others the blog posting was edited to remove the name and link. I erred by not first requesting the deletion of the material, and by acting on my own without consulting the community, errors which I promptly and publicly acknowledged. Subsequent postings on the same blog have continued to attack Misplaced Pages editors in crude language and threatened to expose their identities.

Regarding the core issue of whether sites that seek to expose the real names of pseudononymous editors should be linked to from Misplaced Pages, I think we can judge their intent by their willingness to remove personal information when asked. I do not believe that requesting the deletion of such information in exchange for retaining links counts as "extortion". If a site continues to host information that they have been informed is harmful to Misplaced Pages editors then I do not see how maintaining those links is beneficial to the ongoing project. We should treat our editors with the same respect as we treat the living people about whom we write. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by WilyD

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Attack sites is overly broad and thoughtlessly applied

This redaction of a link to Conservapedia was justified under the MONGO decision. The links in this case offered no hope of finding the offending material (realistically, Conservapedia has 30K+ pages), but called attention to the incident anyhow, so one might find it through Google. This is an overly broad implimentation of policy, caused by the ruling confusion. blogspot.com for instance, holds many thousands or millions of pages, but linking to one doesn't enable anyone to find another. The original MONGO decision did not critically consider the word "sites", which in many cases should refer to "pages". WilyD 22:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mangoe

"Attack site" interpreted narrowly

The definition of "attack site" as used in WP:BADSITES, WP:NPA, and actual application of the proposed policy have been narrower than the phrase suggests. Only one type of attack has covered: giving a real-life name to a Misplaced Pages pseudonym.

• In the "MONGO" case, the following definition was given: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." (see here).
• WP:BADSITES gave the following definition:

For the purposes of this proposal, an attack site is a site outside Misplaced Pages that engages in any of the following:

• Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Misplaced Pages contributors;
• Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
• Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians

• When the discussion moved to WP:NPA the following language was typically inserted: "Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Linking to attack sites is not permitted and doing so repeatedly may result in a block." (See diff; this is only one of many similar edits.) The following notes were typically attached:

The ArbCom has ruled that " website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances," and that "inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."

• In all of the cases mentioned above, the naming of an editor was cited as a reason for removing links.

State of Misplaced Pages Review links

Misplaced Pages Review was the principal target of BADSITES when it was created. However, efforts to remove it have not only stopped, but the number of links has increased, according to the external link finder. On May 30, I counted 193 links; as of this night (17 Sept 2007) there are 213. These break down by usage more or less as follows:

• AN/I: 33, or 15% of the total. Some of this clearly relates to a single ArbCom case.
• ArbCom: 42, or 20% of the total. All of this is for Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark.
• Other Misplaced Pages: 20, or 9% of the total.
• Other Misplaced Pages talk: 14, or 7% of the total.
  • 10 of the last two categories occurred in deletion discussion of Daniel Brandt's article.
• User: 25, or 12% of the total.
• User talk: 59, or 28% of the total.
• Talk: 20, or 9% of the total. 8 of these were found in Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages.

Most references are to specific posts or topics; 32 links are to the site as a whole. I cannot readily determine which links have been added, but it's clear that there is no substantial ongoing campaign to remove them, unless one allows for a superior campaign to add more.

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

The controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position.

Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this:

Misplaced Pages should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

The only websites affected are Misplaced Pages Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Misplaced Pages Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis.

The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it," rather than "hey, come and have a look!"

The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position.

Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Daniel Brandt

On April 28, 2007, the Arbitration Committee received this complaint from me. I received no response.

________

I wish to appeal to the Arbitration Committee for a clarification of two statements made by the ArbCom in the MONGO decision of 2006-10-20:

Outing sites as attack sites

11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances. Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites

Links to attack site

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site

I have standing to file this evidence because these statements regarding MONGO formed the basis of a decision by founder and reporter Michael Snow of The Signpost, and confirmed by editor Ral315, to delete a link to www.wikipedia-watch.org in the 2007-04-23 article titled, "Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself."

Initially Mr. Snow linked to the Misplaced Pages-watch home page in his article. At that time, the site did not even host hivemind.html or hive2.html, two pages that exposed the identities of some editors and administrators. However, two editors summarily deleted the link, one of whom, Musical_Linguist, persisted despite two reversions by SqueakBox. This made a mockery of Mr. Snow's claim to me in an email on 2007-02-28: "... as unlike Misplaced Pages generally the Signpost has a policy of using bylines and allowing the reporter to have final authority over the content."

In the end, Musical_Linguist's deletion of the link was sustained after she cited the above two sentences from the MONGO decision. This apparently intimidated Michael Snow and Ral315 sufficiently, so that they let the deletion stand. When it became clear that the nonexistence of hivemind and hive2 on the site was not relevant at all, I announced that hive2 would be restored in 24 hours if the link was not put back by then.

I cannot believe that the ArbCom uses the word "site" advisedly in these two sentences, when what is probably meant is the word "page." If the word "site" is enforced, then I maintain that the New York Times shall not be linked, because it revealed the name of anonymous editor Brian Chase on 2005-12-11. And The New Yorker magazine must not be linked, because it revealed the name of Ryan Jordan, aka Essjay, on 2007-02-26. Hundreds of publications around the world repeated this information. They are all "attack sites" by the ArbCom's definition. Instead of "site" the two sentences above should read "page."

2. There has been a major debate on Misplaced Pages, and on the WikiEN-l mailing list, about whether the ArbCom statements above should be interpreted as "policy" or whether they apply only to the MONGO case, and fall short of general "policy." ArbCom owes it to Misplaced Pages to clarify the scope of its jurisdiction in cases such as the MONGO case. Knowing that various Wikipedians will seek to exploit any ill-chosen language of any decision by ArbCom as a mandate for summary enforcement, clarification is necessary to prevent future incidents such as the one with Misplaced Pages-watch and The Signpost.

-- Daniel Brandt 68.89.137.101 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MONGO

Badgering

Even after the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO case was settled and the remedy that links to ED "may" be removed, I was harassed about it when I removed only a few links so, many, times, it, could, only, be, because they thought it was funny...to troll my talkpage about something that I was obviously not interested in chatting about.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.