Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Casey Abell (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 20 September 2007 (BADSITES has been renamed, but it's no better). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Active/inactive Arbitrators

Active

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• SimonP

Away/inactive

• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality (Ben)
• Raul654
• UninvitedCompany

The other cyde of pain

I'm surprised to find that, at this time, the workshop fails to even touch on Cyde's public spectacle. Only the evidence page accounts for his gross indiscretion and de facto provocational act. Throughout the "long-time community member" superlatives, Phil Sandifer fails to note the simple fact: had the question been posed semi / privately, a lot of needless anguish (and countless lost work hours, lest we forget) could have been spared. I am not going to formulate this into a remedy or finding of fact, but I truly hope that this incident will not simply be whitewashed by the Committee and that its members will rise above factionalism to deliver a just resolution. The breadth of this case notwithstanding, abusive acts that, not only link to but mirror the practices of attack sites need to be addressed. Not only in theory, but also in practice. Thx. El_C 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Fred Bauder 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Even if Cyde's decision to post to AN/I was in poor judgment, it was not in bad faith, and it was in no way actionable. You've got to be kidding me. Phil Sandifer 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is not a party to the case and should be notified if any proposals involving him are being considered. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbering

I know we're not supposed to mess with this which is why I'm making a note that I fixed some numbering, edit to undo if need be is , that's all. Milto LOL pia 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did screw it up. Fred Bauder 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Fred, what exactly do you mean with "the" attack site? Is there a specific site you meant, or does it apply to all "attack sites"? Melsaran (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Banning all references to a site without telling anybody which site it is... very Kafkaesque. *Dan T.* 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could have "the attack site of the day." Come on, guys, what site can get you banned for merely linking to it? ED? WR? P-J? My user page (mostly attacks on myself)? Casey Abell 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Come to think about it, I'm amazed that I haven't been banned already. My user page is a vicious attack site. Why, I attack a user, by his real name, for being a "clueless oldbie" who "obsessively keeps track of his own edit count" and "enjoys thinking about other people contributing to Misplaced Pages without wearing clothes." I also viciously slam this 10000+ edit user for making "stupid remarks" and "silly comments" and being "hardly even a respectable editor." I admit that this editor is "pretty naive" so maybe that's a mitigating factor, although I also sneer that the user "may have no personal affiliation with Earth other than Misplaced Pages itself."

Okay, I'll drop the humor. But I wish somebody would have some sense about this matter, including a sense of humor and a sense of proportion and a sense of elementary fairness. Threatening to ban people for linking to an unnamed site sounds like something from Stalin's playbook. (I'm trying to avoid a Godwin's law violation here, but it's not easy.) I can't believe that this proposal has even been made, much less gotten two votes in favor. Casey Abell 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem of this issue exemplified, that we have to ask ourselves "what site are we talking about?" This question was raised earlier by another user, and removed by the same user as potential troll bait. I disagree, but we're all on egg shells here. It strikes me as childish referring to things as the site, the attack site, and so on. Is this really about one site? I'm quite confused. daveh4h 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's about Lord Vol... er, I mean The One Who Must Not Be Named! *Dan T.* 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate attempts at harassment

Surely FloNight is not suggesting a concentrated attempt at harassment by Cyde, Gmaxwell, SeraphimBlade, MessedRocker, and everybody else who expressed concern on the ANI thread about SlimVirgin. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely we are not going to consider linking to sites that "present editors in a poor light" as harassment. I don't know how anyone could possibly claim that as anything but an obvious double standard, and the idea of banning anything that criticizes Misplaced Pages editors in a way we don't like is anathema to NPOV. And it's unworkable as a single standard, too; it would be devastating to the encyclopedia to extend that rule to all targets. You can't cover politics, wars, propaganda, hate groups or any kind of incident of conflict without referencing sources that present their targets in a poor light and misrepresent or exaggerate their actions to that end. ShaleZero 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why "negative information" is an unfortunately decided choice of words for defining an attack site. There needs to be something that distinguishes between websites that say "Miltopia is a bad editor" from "Miltopia is engaged in an abusive conspiracy" from "Miltopia is a faggot". Milto LOL pia 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean here: Cyde and co. linking to sites that say "SlimVirgin is abusive zomg" is not even in the same ballpark (I would hope) as Cyde linking to a site that says "SlimVirgin is a ". Milto LOL pia 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Criticism != harassment. ATren 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sending "the right message"?

FloNight talks about "sending the right/wrong message" a few times. Just what is the right message to send? That all of Misplaced Pages must submit to censorship any time somebody gets bothered by something pertaining to them being discussed anywhere on the Web? *Dan T.* 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps FloNight would like to propose her own remedies so that we unenlightened can see what the 'right message' is? 86.137.28.211 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental policies?

Fred Bauder appears to be fundamentally misguided about what our fundamental policies are, as seen here:

Policy matter remanded to the community

3) The community is instructed to develop a workable policy regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked or referenced.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While community attempts to formulate policy are always welcome, the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Additionally, while we may encourage attempts to refine policy, we are in no position to instruct the community to do so. Fred Bauder 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While there are some fundamental foundation policies that are basic to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia projects in general, and are non-negotiable -- see meta:Foundation issues -- WP:NPA is not one of them. It is a policy made by consensus of the community in the English Misplaced Pages (and similarly, the communities in other-language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects may have their own variants of it, possibly similar, possibly very different), and subject to being altered or abolished by community consensus as it evolves over time. So, the community can very well override it... even to the point of abolishing it completely... without it violating foundation policy. Not that I'm advocating anything nearly so extreme; I'm just seeking a more pro-freedom policy where external links posted without harrassing intention are concerned. There's nothing stopping community consensus from evolving such a position, and it is out of line for the ArbCom to insist that it has no right to do so. *Dan T.* 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On efforts made in good faith

Fred - do you really mean to suggest that the validity and good faith of a question or query about one's actions rests on whether it's eventually found to have been actionable? Phil Sandifer 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites to attack pages

I think you guys need to make a distinction between attack sites and attack pages. Misplaced Pages Watch, while mainly being an attack site, does have some useful information that could come up in discussions on wiki, and those posting a link should not be afraid of OMG badsite! Example http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html . That page does not discuss any wikipedia editor but as this decision is stating, that link would put me in a bad light. If we had an article on "problems of wikipedia" (probably fails a few other guidelines and policys), that link would be 100% relevant. I think the guideline here needs to be use good sense. Don't link in non-mainspace links that would be a cause to ban you if you posted that content on wikipedia rather then the external site. For in mainspace (the encyclopaedia part, use editorial judgement, firstly a link attacking a wikipedia editor probably won't be relevant to the article as a whole. —— Eagle101 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. The issue here is that the status of most "attack sites" is a grey area, the circumstances where it is appropriate to link to them vary, and the nature of a given link in context varies. The same rule cannot possibly be made to apply to a sockpuppet harassing someone on their talk page and to a long-time administrator raising a concern on AN/I. Phil Sandifer 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely, wholeheartedly, and a really really whole lot. My original comment on the RfAR made the same suggestion. The easiest way out of this mess is to interpret the MONGO decision on a link-by-link basis (or a page-by-page basis, if you prefer that wording). This avoids the infuriating dispute over what is and is not an "attack site"...or "the attack site." If a particular link is objectionable, remove it. But always make the decision on each link individually. Don't condemn everything on an entire website just because there may be objectionable material somewhere on the site.

Of course, this suggestion is so sensible that it stands no chance of adoption. Sigh. Casey Abell 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely as well, this issue was also discussed here, as well as every other BADSITES related page that has cropped up since its beginning. This arbcom is very complex, but the term "attack site" is one thing that I am sure I do not like. The term "attack sites" has and will lead to disruption. daveh4h 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys really want to ban linking to the New York Times?

I hope you realize that the wording of Proposed principles #4 (which already has two votes of support) would prohibit linking to most news sites such as the New York Times or the Boston Globe:

"4) It is inappropriate to link to external sites which contain substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users."

"Miikka Ryokas, whose user name is Kizor and in an e-mail message said that he was a 22-year-old computer science student from Turku, Finland..." - New York Times

"Misplaced Pages administrator Ryan Kaldari, 28, of Nashville, is an active vandal-fighter. A programmer who edited his high school newspaper, Kaldari said..." - The Boston Globe

Kaldari 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the intent is to refer to sites that provide identifying information that editors do not disclose voluntarily. Additionally, discussion in this case has distinguished between sites that may contain an editor's name on a sporadic basis or if the editor is a prominent individual, as opposed to sites that seek to uncover and publish editors' personal identifying information for purposes such as harassment. Newyorkbrad 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the bogus strawman arguments. substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users obviously does not apply to users who have voluntarily identified themselves to a newspaper. We're talking about sites that have claimed that editors are mentally ill, published photos of their infirm grandparents in an attempt to intimidate them, claimed that other users were paid spies, and given out the address and phone number of teenaged editors who annoyed them. Thatcher131 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal says absolutely nothing about whether or not the information is voluntarily submitted. If the intent of the proposal is different than what it says, the wording of the proposal needs to be edited. I don't have time to get into a pointless debate about what the ArbCom "obviously" "intends" with this proposal. Either correct the wording of the proposal or vote against it please. Kaldari 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get to do either of those things, but I agree the language of the proposal could stand to be clarified. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect Brad, I don't think it is necessary to change the wording of the proposal. Words like "substantial" and "negative" should be interpreted with common sense. There has been a concerted effort around this issue to use straw men, to obfuscate, to wikilawyer, and to ignore common sense, and any wording needed to make these principles immune to deliberate misinterpretation just fuels the idea that common sense does not apply on wikipedia and that only those rules that are written down in triplicate after a 6 month debate are enforceable. No one other than a straw man would try to place the Times in the same category as web sites which "out" people who have chosen to remain anonymous, or that allege that Misplaced Pages admins are being paid by Israel to enforce a pro-zionist point of view. If it is not common sense that a site which advocates calling an editors' private phone number in the middle of the night should not be linked to under any circumstance, but that Michaelmoore.com should be linked to, even if in a fit of pique he briefly suggests vandalizing someone's user page, then I am editing the wrong encyclopedia. Thatcher131 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • By any common sense reading of the proposed principle (albeit out of context), we would be banning both the New York Times and the Boston Globe at the least. Do you contend that neither of the examples I cited could be considered "substantial identifying information"??? By any interpretation of that wording, "common sense" or otherwise, we are giving people an excuse to purge perfectly acceptable external links. I'm not "wiki-lawyering", I'm just pointing out that the wording is extremely sloppy here, so let's fix it. Why does this have to be a big bruhaha? Kaldari 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is rarely common. The last word I've heard, the participants still stand by the deletions of MichaelMoore as appropriate. If he were to post similar material on his site tommorrow, they would seriously delete his links again. Speak up if I'm wrong, guys, but that's the way I understand it. --Alecmconroy 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The substance of Thatcher131's point is, of course, completely well-taken. Personally I think adding an appropriate adjective or two to the wording couldn't hurt, but as I said above in this thread, it's pellucid what the proposed language is supposed to mean. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had told you a year ago that the MONGO case was going to lead to an edit war where people were purging MichaelMoore from the encyclopedia, you'd have dismissed it as a ridiculous strawman. Yet it happened-- and according to MONGO and Fred, it should happen again in the future situations like Michael Moore. Under the new policy Fred's proposed, links can be purged even if they are highly notable and reliable. --Alecmconroy 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a good start you could simply change that "or" to an "and" in the proposed principle. Kaldari 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, you do realize that many people, including ElinorD, MONGO, and Fred Bauder, have insisted that the Michael Moore website should not have been linked to, right? Suggesting that this practice will be applied to censor any site which can be perceived as attacking a single user is not a 'straw man' argument. It is exactly what the proponents of this practice have actually advocated and done. Fred just specifically re-affirmed his support for the Michael Moore link removals on the Workshop page yesterday.

Nor is the possibility of major newspapers 'outing' Misplaced Pages contributors some absurd hypothetical. I think we can all be quite certain that if Brandt had found out Essjay's identity on his own, as he has done many times before, rather than as a result of the correct info being supplied to Wikia, then he still would have gone to the New Yorker, they still would have printed a correction, and it still would have made news in virtually every major paper on the planet. Essjay certainly didn't want that information widely broadcast, nor did he reveal all the details of his personal life which later appeared in print. Even with the self-identification, that fiasco was every bit as much, a revelation of 'private' information and the result of an effort (by Brandt) to 'harass' as the Michael Moore situation... actually much moreso in my opinion.

Fortunately, there is a point of notability at which even the most ardent supporters of 'BADSITES' realize it is contrary to the fundamental purposes of Misplaced Pages. The Times is safe. But michaelmoore.com, per Fred, is not. Which is precisely the problem. The practice of banning links and/or any mention of a site is inherently contrary to the impartial representation of relevant information (aka 'building an encyclopedia'), but we are now engaged not in removing this bad practice but rather in horse-trading over where we shall draw the line below which bias is 'allowed'. --CBD 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Users may be BANNED????

Wait, users who link to attack sites may be BANNED? With no duration? One link, in good faith, or in the context of the article space and poof, you're perma-banned? Is this seriously what Fred and Flo are proposing? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If shorter bans won't work, after a warning, yes. But no, no surprises of the sort you suggest. Fred Bauder 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to rag on Fred, but he's either "too close" to this case or acting with haste or something. Even if it were a given that someone wanted to be able to ban sites like ASM, his proposal is so extreme that it's hard to believe he could seriously want what he's asking for. Maybe he's doing that old "Make your first offer high so you have somewhere to bargain down from" or maybe he just hasn't thought it through.. (or, maybe I'm wrong, and it's a wonderful policy). --Alecmconroy 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording in the proposed enforcement provision (including "after a warning" and "... may be blocked for an appropriate length of time") would seem more consistent with the usual practice. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even when it's restricted to users familiar with the case, a block without warning for mentioning that ASM exists seems pretty harsh to me. ShaleZero 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

So, let's say that one of these so-called "attack sites" becomes notable. Let's say really notable. Articles in the NYT, Newsweek, etc. Am I to understand that an article about it, with a link to the site would not be allowed? This seems like a gross violation of NPOV. The problem I have with the currently proposed remedies/principles is that they have absolutely no regard for context. Yes, I can absolutely see why linking to one of these sites in a discussion or out of context should be considered a personal attack. However, in proper context, it's not clear to me why we should be banning even the mere mention of such sites. The lack of distinction between these two situations (which is what's causing most of the dispute, as far as I can see), is disturbing.

I also want to add that not mentioning "the site" in a ruling forbidding people from mentioning it is really silly. I've followed this back and determined what site we're talking about, but it really just underlines the ridiculousness of disregarding context when you can't even tell people what site it is that you don't want them to talk about. -Chunky Rice 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Fred Bauder has gone back and now added (in proposed finding of fact 1) the name of the site about which he's primarily concerned. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I read the ruling, having an article about one of these sites would in and of itself be a violation, as said article would by definition be a "reference" to the site. Kirill 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to show that I'm not always a nagging critic of ArbCom, I want to compliment Kirill on the great good sense he's shown in this case. I hope the remaining arbitrators will carefully consider his well-founded arguments as they vote.

I was surprised when I finally figured out that Fred's "moral depravity" site was ASM. I figured he was talking about ED, which makes ASM look like the soul of respectability. ED doesn't just harass Misplaced Pages editors, but it does so in a grossly and intentionally obscene manner, unlike ASM. In fact, Encyclopedia Dramatica may well be the next test case for this endless BADSITES hoohah.

Like it or not, ED has steadily risen in the Alexa rankings, and is now resting comfortably in the top five thousand. It's not unimaginable that the site will eventually crack the top thousand – there's always a market for gross-out comedy – and start to garner some notices, at least in the semi-respectable web press. Right now there's a reference to the site in a respectable press outlet in the Google news cache, and there's probably more on the way. Sooner or later, somebody will probably try to recreate the article on ED with those third-party sources, and we'll all be yelping about BADSITES again.

If ArbCom would only clarify that the MONGO decision applies on a link-by-link (or page-by-page) basis, we could avoid all the unsolvable problems of identifying BADSITES to be blacklisted. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but a link-by-link approach is the only reasonable and fair way out of this mess. Casey Abell 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How can we possibly justify omitting otherwise valid content from this encyclopedia simply because we do not like that content? If an "attack site" is notable and a well written, well referenced article could be written on it, there is no possible justification (even protecting Misplaced Pages editors) for not allowing it. Because once we do that, we cross a line into territory where we (or at last Arbcom) can make decisions on what we can and cannot write about, based on not liking the content. I've seen AfDs of notable (but potentially offensive) organizations like NAMBLA before. Wouldn't a ruling like the ones proposed open the door to deleting these entries, as well? I honestly don't understand what Fred Bauder and FloNight are thinking. -Chunky Rice 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks

WP:RPA has tradionally been controversial and does not appear to have consensual support. However, the finding that "Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks ..." effectively asserts that RPA is policy. Is that the ArbCom's intent? >Radiant< 11:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More a restatement of the right of self defense. Fred Bauder 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that arbcom is in a grey area of not setting policy, but having enforceable rulings, I would say that anything the community doesn't liek they can summarily ignore, short of "punishments" and remedies. Viridae 11:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but given that plenty of the users have the tendency to say "I can do this because arbcom said so" I thought I'd ask for a preemptive clarification. Note how in a recent case, much of the debate centered on the definition of "wheel war", and this was caused by the ArbCom in a prior case defining the term in a way that contradicts WP:WHEEL. >Radiant< 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - the argument that "the arbcom has found X actionable" is generally a highly persuasive one. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Arbcom doesn't make policy is both true and a non-starter. Real life courts don't make law, either. They do, however, interpret existing law and their rulings have very real and long lasting impacts in the way laws are applied. Like an appeals court of the Supreme court, Arbcom should consider every potential application of the ruling that they hand down. Wording, phrasing, potential consequences. These all should be considered very carefully. -Chunky Rice 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, that's only true in countries with Common Law. In most countries (e.g. countries with Civil Law), courts cannot create new interpretations of laws or consider "common practice" in their judgements, and their rulings must be based entirely on existing laws. Melsaran (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being ethnocentric. Regardless, I think my point is valid. -Chunky Rice 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, arbcom rulings should be worded very carefully because they tend to be cited a lot (as happened with the ~MONGO ruling). Melsaran (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the ArbCom cannot make policy. WP:RPA was rejected, yet the ArbCom does now want to adopt a principle saying "Users have the right to (...) remov personal attacks", which directly contradicts community consensus on the issue. That seems wrong to me. Melsaran (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the personal feelings of the targeted clearly are of a nature as to override community consensus. I say "personal feelings" and not "personal security" because no action being contemplated here by the ArbCom, or undertaken by editors or admins, provides anyone with greater or lesser protection whatsoever with respect to stalking, only higher or lower levels of annoyance with respect to appositionally problematized and problematic editors.—AL 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A policy that users could not remove personal attacks would be even more wrong. Fred Bauder 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that the proposed "right of self defense" amounts to an unlimited license to edit war over any remark which any editor finds even remotely offensive. This would not be a wise move on the part of the Arbitration Committee, nor is (as others have noted) it wise for the ArbCom to establish by the law of the case policy which the community has rejected. Doing so would merely undermine the ArbCom's support within the community.

The comment I made last night to NewYorkBrad is that you people are trying to ban elephants without actually mentioning elephants. Instead of wasting your own, and everyone else's, time trying to find some clever way to prohibit pachyderms from nesting in the corner without putting up a "NO ELEPHANTS" sign, just come out and say "This is bad. Don't do it. Move along." Geez.

I would also remind the Arbitrators that they must never create policies to protect the community which interfere with writing the encyclopedia. I notice that several of the proposed points in the decision would do exactly that, and that Kirill has rightly rejected them on that basis. I call upon Fred and Flonight to reverse their unfortunate decisions in these matters, and for the rest of the Arbitrators to remember that this is a project to write an encyclopedia, and not merely a social gathering site. The day any one of you puts keeping social harmony within the community, or the feelings of any one member of it, ahead of writing the encyclopedia to the point that you make rules that interfere with writing the encyclopedia is the day you yourself should be banned from this project. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What did ignoring the feelings of others get you? Fred Bauder 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it pains me to be put in the position of ignoring you, but if the best you can do is to make such bankrupt comments as that, I see no point in engaging with you. It is grossly inappropriate for Arbitrators to make arguments ad hominem or to erect strawmen, and yet you have just done both. Congratulations on disappointing me yet further. I shall not participate further in this discussion, as I see no further reason to pay any attention whatsoever to the Arbitration Committee or its pronouncements. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Linking to libel is republishing libel" - is this true?

proposed principle #12 states that "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication", and refers the reader to a site arguing that Hyperlinking to libel is republishing a libel. I have a couple of problems with this; firstly, I'm not clear on the legal issue, nor on the source cited. My understanding of Barrett v. Rosenthal (incidentally, the subject of an earlier Misplaced Pages ArbCom case) is that individual users were found immune from liability for the republication of defamatory content on the Internet under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This apparently relevant high-profile case is not discussed in the review cited by User:Fred Bauder (presumably it post-dates the review?), and the review itself contains the disclaimer that "This is a literature review prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as legal advice."

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am way out of my depth here, but should we really be bringing the legal system into this by using terms like "libel" and "defamation"? Not only are we apparently on very shaky ground legally, if I interpret the implications of Barrett v. Rosenthal correctly, but we're citing a source that would probably fail our WP:RS guidelines to support the principle. Most importantly, the principle edges way too close to violating the spirit of no legal threats. Is this of concern to anyone else, or am I taking crazy pills? MastCell 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the community considers the link, with administrators reverting its removal, and the arbitration committee approving of it, the fact pattern might change. Remember that anything that any judge takes seriously is a legal hazard. Fred Bauder 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the next section. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does say "may constitute republicantion" which is true. It might. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any really definitive case law or legislation on the matter. The whole thing is highly speculative, though, and I generally agree, inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is what it is, consideration of the question by someone versed in the area, but not an attorney. It is advanced as a marker of possible danger, not as black letter law. Fred Bauder 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's an interesting topic, probably worthy of discussion somewhere on Misplaced Pages. I'm just not convinced that it needs to be an affirmed principle of Misplaced Pages. -Chunky Rice 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments below fully, I suppose my major concern is that "advancing a marker of possible legal danger" and "making a legal threat" seem semantically equivalent (cf. "I advance a marker of possible danger, you make a legal threat"). Even where real legal danger exists (which is by no means clear in this case), somewhat heavy-handed warnings about said legal danger tend to have a net negative chilling or intimidating effect on the encyclopedia-building process - I think this is reason why the community has codified WP:NLT. Giving ArbCom sanction to this principle, as worded, seems counter to that policy. MastCell 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was that I think that the main issue is that it's not just a warning/discussion, it's an Arbcom ruling. If this topic were brought up at the Villiage Pump, I think it would be an interesting, productive discussion. With Arbcom ruling it as a principle in this case, I think you're right about the effect it may have. -Chunky Rice 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Caution to arbitrators

I appreciate and agree with much, though not all, of what various arbitrators have written in the proposed decision, and look forward to input from the other arbitrators in the hope that a consensus set of principles here can be arrived at. However, I would strongly caution the arbitrators against adopting in its current form proposed principle 12, which states, "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication."

I believe that I understand the purpose of this proposal, which I assume is to remind editors that they have ethical, and perhaps in extreme cases legal, responsibility if links to sites containing grossly defamatory material are included in Misplaced Pages pages. I also note that the proposal contains the word "may," and thus is not necessarily taking a stand on what the outcome might be in the event of a challenge to any particular link.

Nonetheless, I am concerned that this one-sentence proposal oversimplies a highly complex, sometimes unsettled, and continuously evolving area of the law, even apart from the question of which jurisdiction's law might apply in a given situation. In addition, the webpage at the cited link is extremely confusing and does not appear to be a reliable source. Most troubling, I am concerned that this principle would be misapplied far beyond its intended scope and could be misused in an attempt to create liability for our editors and/or for the project that might not otherwise exist. I would urge that this proposal be dropped or substantially revised. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember, we publish in every jurisdiction on earth. While we cheerfully defy Chinese and Saudi law with respect to matters of substance, there is no reason not to conform to prohibitions against malicious publication. Fred Bauder 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But this would be mis-cited in every content dispute about adding an external link between now and the end of time. It also might be taken as a statement of the Foundation's or the project's position on whether liability should exist. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the Foundation's lawyers should be venturing statements as to what legal liabilities might exist (in any context that goes beyond idle chatter). *Dan T.* 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fred's latest fine-tuning

This takes a lot of the worst out of the decision, but it still raises a major problem - this is, as it stands, a content ruling that antisocialmedia.net should not be mentioned by name in any context including the Overstock.com article. Even if that viewpoint were true, it is outside this committee's mandate to determine this. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a content issue. The article could be improved and still not mention the site if that is the ruling of ArbCom. For instance, a section header of "Website critical of critics" would be a more informative section header than "antisocialmedia.net" which means nothing to most people. That leaves one remaining reference which can be removed without hurting the quality of the article. As for "taking the worst out of the decision," I assume you mean limiting the scope. A limited scope decision is one that I have favored from the beginning. --Mantanmoreland 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Fred's latest fine-tuning is, but proposed principle #14 is an exact restatement of BADSITES:

Malicious sites

14) 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 difference is that BADSITES is now called MALICIOUSSITES. The new name is not an improvement – it's just longer. Under the BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES proposal, any editor can claim a site is "substantially" (whatever that means) engaged in "cyberstalking" (whatever that means) and start ripping out every link to the site. This will make the Michael Moore war look like a kumbaya love-in.

One more time: please stop trying to define "attack sites." Any attempted definition will set off endless edit wars and disruption over whether an entire site meets the criteria. Instead, define an "attack link" (or page) and emphasize that a link may only be removed for its specific content, not objectionable content elsewhere on the site where the link resides. You will still get disagreements over specific links, but you won't get rampaging campaigns to rip out every link to sites that people dislike. Casey Abell 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)