Revision as of 18:59, 7 September 2006

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Why is a lawyer who has "This user has survived the worst of Stalinist Excess from Leftists." on his page, determining what should be on this aritration page? MONGOs edits are conservative in nature, and rootology's are clearly liberal in nature. Where is rootology's admin liberal lawyer? Shouldn't a non-partisan wikiuser, who usually doesn't edit political wikipages determine what is in this arbitration? Again, if this statment is against wikipedia policy, please let me know. User:Mongo opened the door to the entire affiliation question rootology was my "buddy": "You showed up because your buddy may end up indefinitely banned".

I just read this wonderful article on wikipedia today, I recommed it to anyone. New Yorker: Can Misplaced Pages conquer expertise? Why do I bring this up?:

"Martin Wattenberg and Fernanda B. Viégas, two researchers at I.B.M. who have studied (wikipedia) said: "Wattenberg and Viégas have also identified a “first-mover advantage”: the initial contributor to an article often sets the tone"

User:Fred Bauder has a “first-mover advantage” and is setting the tone of this arbitration Workshop#Proposed_final_decision.

I would plead with others editors to take the initative and be independent in your assessment of this arbitration.

At first glance, from someone who has never looked at this case, this appears to be a case of admins protecting their own, which is never really acknowleged, but happens frequently on wikipedia. Can I say this last sentence without being booted? If this is against some policy I am unaware of, please let me know and I will delete it immediatly. I am not accusing User:Fred Bauder of anything, when I say this, I mean the arbitration in general. I am just expressing my opinion.

I would also like to mention that user:rootology has been booted for 24 hours, (I agree with the boot--the reason for the boot is not at issue here) and is unable to defend himself as others "set...the tone." Travb (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harrassment

1) It is unacceptable to harass another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Combatting harassment

2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Links to attack site

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user and are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is extremely important for "attack site" to be defined clearly. It is unacceptable for this to be up to individuals to arbitrarily determine. Also, it needs clarification if "attack site" means all of a site, or just a portion of it. If NYTIMES.COM tomorrow does an expose on WP including sensitive personal info, do we no longer use NYtimes.com as a reference source? Dangerous open ended wording. rootology (T) 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Solidarity

4) Misplaced Pages users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or desyopping uncooperative administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The thousand musketeers Fred Bauder 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re-publication of deleted articles

5) It is inappropriate to link to sites which re-publish articles which have been deleted on Misplaced Pages due to privacy or libel considerations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this case. This is the product of a mistake. Fred Bauder 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Recommend that *if* this is voted on, it be clarified to be "portion of the site" or "site in general". Dangerous open ended wording. rootology (T) 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Guilt by association

6) Mere participation in a website which spoofs or criticizes Misplaced Pages is not an actionable offense in itself. No individual, even a sysop, on a Wiki is in control of content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Editors on any wiki, especially sysops, are in control of content to a degree. Vandalism and harassment on Misplaced Pages are reverted on sight.--MONGO 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, should someone enjoy playing rascal, they must conform to the role while playing it. They cannot, from time to time, play prude then go back to rascal. Nasty drama is not reverted on ED, but praised. Fred Bauder 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with MONGOs logic here is that it assumes that any one person can make final decisions on 3rd party content. For a good example of why this is flawed, see Daniel Brandt. Does he get to decide what is excluded against majority here? rootology (T) 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Mongo here. Perhaps a better description would be: "Mere participation in a website which spoofs or criticizes Misplaced Pages is not an actionable offense in itself. No individual, even a sysop, on a Wiki is in absolute control of content, given the nature of a wiki. Content on Misplaced Pages that violates Misplaced Pages policy is subject to reversion or deletion." I think it would clarify the principle a little better, and remind about the fact that there are limits to acceptable content at WP. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for deletion

7) Involvement by Misplaced Pages users in debates regarding deletion, even of subjects they are involved in, is not an actionable offense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support of harassment

8) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Karma

9) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Misplaced Pages can expect their Misplaced Pages activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Right to edit Misplaced Pages pseudononymously

10) Members of the Misplaced Pages community, including administrators, may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Misplaced Pages or to edit anonymously. The limited exceptions to this principle -- such as that members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees must be publicly identified for legal reasons and that Wikipedians who are children should not disclose personal identifying information for safety reasons -- have no application to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Most Wikipedians edit pseudonymously

11) For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians, including many administators, have availed themselves of the ability to edit without disclosing their real-world identities. Experience has shown that many editors and some administrators would not edit Misplaced Pages or would limit their participation if their edits would result in disclosure of their real-world identities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Outing sites as attack sites

12) 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 Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would state that this mainly needs to apply outside of arbcom pages, such as article/policy/discussion pages. It may be necessary to link to "bad" websites in situations such as this arbitration case.--MONGO 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We have no need to actually link to them. Fred Bauder 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal morals and ideals

12) Personal morals and beliefs, be they personal, religious, ideological, or any other basis in origin, shall have no basis or direct application in matters of content on Misplaced Pages main article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If it is not proper for me to leave this, I ask for an arbiter to remove it. This has been what I've been argueing since Day 1 of this mess. Delete the article if it merits deletiion per Misplaced Pages policy, but do not dress it up in your beliefs as such. If you hate a given topic with all your heart, that's meaningless. Only application of WP rules govern what merits inclusion as an article. Many people here loathe Daniel Brandt et al, but he's still here. Many people are offended by all sorts of religious or sexual matters--but they merit inclusion. No person's morals shall trump the project itself. Morals are irrelevant. rootology (T) 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment of MONGO

1) It is alleged that MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been harassed by Kirkharry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Todd_Lanuzzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hmmm1111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Keystone23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Trazombigblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) criticized MONGO's efforts to defeat the harassment, Request for comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attack article

2) A article attacking MONGO was created at Encyclopædia Dramatica.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing on ED

3) MONGO apparently edited the article at Encyclopædia Dramatica. Checkuser was run and his ip disclosed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

My IP begins with 68 currently, so continued display of that IP number is not a problem.--MONGO 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Method of harrassment

4) The MONGO article on ED was made the featured article, links were posted on Misplaced Pages to it, and screenshots of the main page of ED with that article on it uploaded to Misplaced Pages. MONGO responded by deleting the links and images and protecting the article on ED. He was upset.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I actually Fully-Protected the article itself, it was later unprotected and then immediately reprotected by Tony Sidaway. After the talk page had an anon add IP information to it, I Semi-Protected the talk page.--MONGO 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rootology

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was involved in the Bantown deletion debate and strongly argued against deletion of Encyclopædia Dramatica, see . In addition to complaining about MONGO's efforts to defeat harassment , , , , , complained about Mongo's edits to ED Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details. Rootology was himself involved in tendentious editing of Encyclopædia Dramatica .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Rootology admitted that the PrivateEditor account is also his, so I never asked for a checkuser verification.--MONGO 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is the ArbComm going to address whether Rootology was wikistalking Mongo and others? Thanks, TheronJ 13:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I doubt he will be able to continue to edit with that name anyway. He is however welcome to create a new username and edit in a normal manner. Stalking will give that away should he engage in it. Fred Bauder 14:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I strongly disagree with your opinion here and ask that the question of stalking be addressed (even if found to go against me). I absolutely did no such thing with MONGO, and as demonstrated in my evidence I shot his "theory" of that full of 1,000 holes. He was barely even involved not even editing in 99% of the articles I supposedly stalked him on. rootology (T) 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Weevlos

6) Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has copied charges against MONGO and other administrators to User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence. These were originally placed on his talk page by Trazombigblade .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In regards to this, that evidence was demonstrated by Fred himself to have been sent TO weevlos by a blocked spammer that was not him, further demonstrating that Weevlos was improperly blocked. Also note that admins such as Freakofnurture STILL have this same data on their pages to this day. rootology (T) 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Links to ED

7) MONGO takes the position that links to ED may be removed on sight .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Does rootology get to add his own postion? Travb (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn

8) Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has compiled evidence regarding MONGO at User talk:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What is the evidence? I see a long talk page, lets discuss the evidence here, without such blank adjectives as "accessive zeal" Lets discuss the evidence against MONGO the same way we discuss the evidence against rootology. I am only asking for a fair and level playing field. User talk:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence has compiled evidence, lets see the evidence, here in this forum, the same way that we see the evidence here, in this forum for MONGO. Travb (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

9) In addition to featuring an attack article on a Misplaced Pages administrator on its Main Page, Encyclopædia Dramatica permits recreation of "uncensored" versions of articles which have been deleted or modified on Misplaced Pages due to privacy or libel considerations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just discovered this on recent changes there. Another good reason not be linking to them. Fred Bauder 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Really dumb. I was at Wikitruth. Fred Bauder 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The ED website has at least a dozen attack articles on Wikipedians, but I'm not going to link to any of them.--MONGO 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think you can unstrike this one or at least reword it to mention attack pages on other wikipedia administrators, Fred (I won't link to them, obviously). -- Grafikm 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

10) MONGO was criticized for removing the link to ED while it was protected and made this response . This is while the attack page on him was the featured article on ED. The debate on page protection. He has made accusations regarding rootology and SchmuckyTheCat Discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion review

11} Deletion review

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Further updates have been added concerning this matter to my evidence section.--MONGO 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Badlydrawnjeff

12) Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits under the same name on ED, but is lately inactive. He has been mildly critical regarding the MONGO incident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this expresses the situation? Fred Bauder 12:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is not entirely true. It's situations similar to it that lead to my inactivity, it was simply a more recent example of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's more accurate, probably as good as we'll get under the circumstances (not a criticism of this here). --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Badlydrawnjeff was critical of the ED articles that exist on the ED website which are there attacking Wikipedians, he was understanding about it here, in that he seemingly disapproved.--MONGO 18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Check his user page there. Fred Bauder 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the "Webmaster" on the ED website posted a comment he made here on his userpage there.--MONGO 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff states he is "gone" and they can feel free to desyop him., and that was his last edit there under that username.--MONGO 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood, however, bottom line he is on the outs. Fred Bauder 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as that username, yes.--MONGO 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're accusing me of sockpuppetry there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a general attempt to smear your evidence, as the statement appears to be baseless and without evidence. rootology (T) 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a reasonable observation...the evidence supports that Badlydrawnjeff is no longer editing at ED...but when he continues to fight to restore the ED article, it makes me question whether he has actually left the site fully.--MONGO 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

...or, some people refuse to let broadly stroked ideological reasons affect common sense and set precedent. Similar to the civil conversation you and I had on your talk page re: the 9/11 stuff. I don't personally agree with the Jones/truth movement ideas, but I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them in and represented in a NPOV tone of view. The problem is that people's personal morals and ideals are beginning to widespread encroach and creep into WP, poisoning it slowly from the ground up. Like groundwater pollution. Any users, or group of users, personal morals, ideals, etc. have no appropriate place in any content or article matters. Facts are facts, is what I've been trying to hammer since Day 1 of this... rootology (T) 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, broadly stroked ideological reasons, "stop the Neocon POV pushing hockey goons".--MONGO 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, I still think the site is worthy of inclusion. Trust me, after the situation with you and another ED situation with another editor here, they don't want me around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Actually, it's a reasonable observation" Have you done a checkuser MONGO? If not, your accusation is baseless and without merit. "broadly stroked ideological reasons" doesn't matter: you either did the checkuser, or you didn't. If you didn't this section should be deleted as baseless. Travb (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to do a checkuser at the ED website?--MONGO 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In otherwords you have no way to find out who this editor is? Travb (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on his determination to fight so hard to keep the ED article and to twice actively engage in the attempts to undelete it, my personal opinion is that he may still have alligences to that website...that is my opinion and I am entitled to it.--MONGO 17:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So maybe we should rewrite the top sentence as "In Mongo's personal opinion..." Travb (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care what you do. BUt, one thing is for sure...soon as you saw how your buddy rootlogy was, you came straight here to start a fight.--MONGO 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Consensus In re: "I don't care what you do."

Are you insinuating that there is an liberal cabal? My guess is that a lot of admins don't even like me...

Need I remind you again: "My affiliation or lack of affiliation with rootology has no bearing on your "excessive zeal" (nor on your lack of evidence)." If you want to talk about affiliations, which you brought up orginally, not me: Why is a lawyer who has "This user has survived the worst of Stalinist Excess from Leftists." on his page, determining what should be on this aritration page? MONGOs edits are conservative in nature, and rootology's are clearly liberal in nature. Where is rootology's admin liberal lawyer? Shouldn't a non-partisan wikiuser, who usually doesn't edit political wikipages determine what is in this arbitration? Again, if this statment is against wikipedia policy, please let me know. Do you consider Fred a "buddy"? Travb (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Fred Bauder 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't thought that anything here had anything to do with politics. What lack of evidence? Let's get this straight...you made a pretty hostile comment on an afd earlier today , , , , , , adding personal attacks both in your edits and your edit summaries. You were blocked ...then emailed the blocking editor that you would be good I suppose, so he unblocked you. You came to my talkpage to apologize and removed the comments you made on the afd...then, in less than an hour, you discover that rootology is in trouble and your next stop is this arbcom...I think you have a problem and all you're doing is making it bigger.--MONGO 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, for writing: "I hadn't thought that anything here had anything to do with politics." You sure tend to widen the argument. Is this a trial on all my edits, we can expand this to include all of your edit history too? About all of your personal attacks against other users? Talking about behavior, it appears like a lot of editors are really sore at you. Fortunatly, I am not "infamous" enough to have an arbitration, or a really nasty page on another wiki. Now that you have changed the subject yet again: How many times have you had arbitration called against you? Thank you for mentioning that

1. the editor unblocked me in less than an hour,
2. that I apologized on your talk page, and
3. that I erased all of the comments.

I guess this means you didn't accept my apology. Thats to bad.

1. My question, is what does this have to do with your evidence about User:Badlydrawnjeff?
2. What does this have to do with your affiliation with Fred, and my affiliation with rootology?

How can we resolve this, if you keep changing subjects? We already have established that you have no evidence about User:Badlydrawnjeff, that it is just "my personal opinion is that he may still have alligences to that website".

I think you have a problem and all you're doing is making it bigger.

I am waiting for you or another admin to start threating me for expressing my opinion. (Remember this sentence--if it doesnt happen, I will admit I am wrong). Travb (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You personally attacked me in your edit summaries and commentary at the afd, when you should attack the message, not the messanger. Not once had you posted anything to this arbcom unitl after you saw what was possibly going to happen to rootology...do you think I am blind? Go ahead and start another arbcom if you think I am so bad....quite obviously, this entire thing has been a giant troll-a-rama from the beginning...and your long list of blocks and other disruptive excesses are more than apparent. Bring it on, pal.--MONGO 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:CONSENSUS Hmmm...so are we no longer talking about our edit histories? "Not once had you posted anything to this arbcom unitl after you saw what was possibly going to happen to rootology" And your point is? Are we talking about friendships now again? Because we can talk about your friendship or non-friendship with Fred, if you like.

"Go ahead and start another arbcom if you think I am so bad" No one said you were bad MONGO. You seem like a nice guy. I have nothing against you. In fact, on encyclopediadramatica, I wrote that they should erase all of the nasty things, and if they kept it up, wikipedia would ban their site. You can check my edits there, same username.

"quite obviously, this entire thing has been a giant troll-a-rama from the beginning" Please WP:AGF. I have not called you a troll, and I would appreciate you not calling me a troll.

"and your long list of blocks and other disruptive excesses are more than apparent" Wait. I am confused are we talking about edit histories, or friendships, or Badlydrawnjeff? The subject keeps changing. This is the Badlydrawnjeff section, are we done talking about Badlydrawnjeff? We can talk about blocks and disruptive excesses if you like. Please keep i mind that:

1. the editor unblocked me in less than an hour,
2. that I apologized on your talk page, and
3. that I erased all of the comments. Travb (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

13) Encyclopædia Dramatica (ED) is a wiki which spoofs and caricatures Misplaced Pages. Its content is provocative, satirical, and often interesting. It makes no pretense of presenting accurate information, focusing rather on what is termed "drama", which is to say, interesting provocative material concerning the internet and its memes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per my above comments, this is simply factually incorrect. It looks like even "wiki"--not even WP itself--stuff is a fraction of their content. rootology (T) 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Provocative material on ED

14) ED contains a few articles which sharply satirize prominent Wikipedians, including an article on MONGO which was featured on its Main Page. That article includes a number of specific alleged "misdeeds". There have been efforts on Misplaced Pages to link to, and in one case, import such material from ED.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involvement on ED by Misplaced Pages users

15) There are several Misplaced Pages users who also edit on ED, including at least two sysops there. There is an extended discussion of their alleged responsibility at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion of ED

16) As the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) the article was recently deleted. The reason given was that the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source. A number of Misplaced Pages users known or suspected of involvement with ED argued for its retention while MONGO and users aligned with his position argued for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Factually incorrect assertation and wording. The stated (incorrect) reason for AfD on the AfD was that it failed to meet notability standards. The ED article itself as I remember it from time of deletion had nothing to do with the "MONGO drama" aside from the inclusion of the vandalized image days before. rootology (T) 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consider rephrasing the statement "A number of Misplaced Pages users known or suspected of involvement with ED argued for its retention". Whilst the reasons for the conclusion of the AfD are agreable as fact, it only speculates as to sockpuppetry. The wording here appears to imply that all those who argued for keep where suspected as being involved with ED, involved in this case also implying active within the ED community. (Again, pure procedural point, no comment on the issues otherwise) LinaMishima 19:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuckface

17) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a prominent editor on ED, see Image:MongoUSDHS.jpg which was uploaded by ED user "Fuckface" and used in the MONGO article there. From editing patterns there is circumstantial evidence that Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PrivateEditor are the same user Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence#Is_Rootology_an_ED_user.3F. The user contributions of Fuckface show him to be the principal editor there who has created articles which harass Misplaced Pages users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The evidence presented by Mushroom is compelling but not proof per se that Rootology is PrivateEditor is Fuckface.--MONGO 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is proof that Fuckface is PrivateEditor. Hint, look at the red link to the user at the top of the page. I will examine Rootology's edits. If he is editing responsibly, it is at least evidence that he can successfully wear two hats. Fred Bauder 11:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that when Mushroom posted the evidence of course. I've been convinced all along Rootology is an ED editor, but my sentiments are that this entire thing, as far as I am concerned, has suceeded in what his and others intentions were all along, which was to create more drama.--MONGO 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A successful decision will soon make this matter as dull as a butterknife. A fly swatting show. Fred Bauder 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The sentance begining with "From editing patterns there is circumstantial evidence…" should probably be striked out and given it's own section, the relivance of that statment is dependant upon the rest of this one, and it may be contested whilst the rest of this statement agreed with. There is also no assertion present in the above linking the user Fuckface with PrivateEditor or Rootology, which suggests that perhaps you may wish to split these asertions up further. It is generally a good idea to put forth a single arguement at a time (No comment otherwise on any of this, just a procedural point). LinaMishima 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site

18) Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica website purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Misplaced Pages administrators and editors. Any Wikipedian whose conduct assists the ED editors in compiling and publicizing such information has acted contrary to the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Accept.--MONGO 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Links to ED

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MONGO

2) No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I didn't get involved with this to necessary have anyone cited for behavior, but doesn't this create a bit of a poor precedent in terms of how to handle admins who abuse their tools in emotional situations? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is an appropriate remedy for him, considered as an individual. Fred Bauder 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's nice, but it's not really an answer to my question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Request an answer to this as well. rootology (T) 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I oppose this watered down free pass for MONGO. What "excessive zeal" is User:Fred Bauder talking about? Lets categorize exactly what MONGO did, publically, here, in section 2. Not use watered down adjectives. What about rootologies "excessive zeal"? Does he get a free pass too? I prospose an ammedment to this free pass: "No action is taken against MONGO (and rootology) for any excessive zeal (they have) displayed."Travb (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Go look at the evidence page...it's not going to be reposted here. You showed up because your buddy may end up indefinitely banned, and judging by his actions this morning, he hasn't helped his case one bit.--MONGO 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we post "No action is taken against rootology for any excessive zeal he has displayed."? And since when have you decided what the arbitration committee decides. My affiliation or lack of affiliation with rootology has no bearing on your "excessive zeal". Further, this section is not a section about Rootology's actions this morning, please stay on topic and answer me this question, does Rootology get a free pass too? Can I, or another wikiuser add this: "No action is taken against rootology for any excessive zeal he has displayed." with 'no explanation of exactly what rootology did or didn't do. Misplaced Pages policy is intended to be fair and equal. Admins don't get free passes because they know other admins. Travb (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to propose that, you certainly can and arbcom will examine it and make their decision. Are you insinuating that there is an admin cabal? My guess is that a lot of admins don't even like me...--MONGO 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add words to my mouth. I have no idea how to propose it, but I will right now. Further, as I mentioned above what is the "excessive zeal" Fred is talking about? I think that is rather vague. I don't even think other admins know exactly what he is talking about, maybe Fred can explain, I will message him, along with my proposal.Travb (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I stated that you can add whatever proposal you wish, and arbcom will decide on it.--MONGO 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, thank you so much for responsing even if it was only this "Wrong on all counts." (above) Now that I have your attention, can I ask you the same questions I asked on your talk page, which I still haven't gotten a response too?:

What exactly is "excessive zeal" Fred? Can I propose that rootology not be punished for his "excessive zeal too? I would like to propose this right now. Since you are an admin, can you add this as a proposal?: "No action is taken against rootology for any excessive zeal he has displayed."

In addition, I would like to propose that rootology gets a liberal lawyer admin (see above), or some non-partisan wikipedian makes the proposals here. Travb (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors of ED

3) Users who are also editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Misplaced Pages and Encyclopædia Dramatica and admonished to wear their Misplaced Pages hats while here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

PrivateEditor

4) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

My sending of an image to someone was abused, and I don't ever plan on using the name again, so thats fine. I don't even remember the password to be honest. rootology (T) 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rootology admitted that the PrivateEditor account is also his, so I never asked for a checkuser verification.--MONGO 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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:

Enforcement by block

1) Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Unless ArbCom is declaring that as official policy that "There will never be an article on ED" again on WP, this is a bad idea. I'd link to the silly Crystal Ball essay, but it's not needed. Something could theoretically happen at any time that could grant this (or any site) sufficient notability that they would be worthy of inclusion as an article. rootology (T) 21:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that there are precedents, per se, but we can't forget Wikitruth in this instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So will I be booted now for this: User:Travb#encyclopediadramatica it has nothing to do with Mondo's encyclopediadramatica page. As the New Yorker article stated:

"Martin Wattenberg and Fernanda B. Viégas, two researchers at I.B.M. who have studied the site using computerized visual models called "history flows," found that the talk pages and "meta pages"—those dealing with coördination and administration—have experienced the greatest growth. Whereas articles once made up about eighty-five per cent of the site’s content, as of last October they represented seventy per cent. As Wattenberg put it, "People are talking about governance, not working on content."

Yet another reactionary policy handed down by the admins. I agree with User:Rootology, is this official policy? Travb (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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: