Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Attack sites

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 23 September 2007 (→Status differential). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:46, 23 September 2007 by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) (→Status differential)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Freedom of Expression

1) Misplaced Pages attracts legitimate criticism. Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Misplaced Pages or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to. This decision is about actual harassment, not legitimate criticism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes, and we all would benefit from more sites that provide thoughtful criticism. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

No personal attacks

2) Personal attacks on other users are not acceptable; Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment

3) Engaging in a pattern of threatening or intimidating behavior directed at another user is unacceptable; Misplaced Pages:Harassment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Linking to external sites

4) Harassing another user by linking to external sites which contain information harmful to the other user is unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, doing this to harass is unacceptable. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Personal attacks and harassment hosted off-site cannot be linked to if stating it on-site is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Attack sites

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, exposing users to more harassment by linking to attack sites is not acceptable. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Far too broad; plenty of notable sites contain "negative" information about our editors (moreso for those who are public persons). Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) per Kirill, and other reservations.
  3. Per Kirill; this could be seriously abused. As it stands, this could ban links to newspapers and other serious sources of information. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Do not want to cause confusion; this might be interpreted too broadly by some. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Salt the earth

6) In extreme cases, external attack sites which display moral depravity, in addition to removal of links to the site, references to it may also be removed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. If a significant mission and scope of a web site and its content is to harass Wikipedians and does so in an extreme manner. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Dealing with harassment

7) Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks, removal of links to external harassment, and, in extreme cases, removal of references to attack sites. These activities are not subject to revert limitations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedians should support fellow Wikipedians by removing personal attacks, links to attack sites, and in extreme cases all reference to attack sites. In some situations, protecting a harassed user takes precedent over transparency. In extreme cases, removal of an article or content may be temporarily necessary to stop harassment. These cases are the exception not the rule. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Note well the 'In extreme cases'. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Dealing with harassment

7.1) Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks and removal of links to external harassment. These activities are not subject to revert limitations.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Second choice Fred Bauder 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Does not go far enough in extreme cases. Too easy to game the system. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Compliance

8) All editors are expected to comply with Misplaced Pages policies.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, the sun rises in the East Fred Bauder 20:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good-faith discussion

9) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Misplaced Pages policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

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


Oppose:
  1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Discussion of an allegation derived from an external attack site engaged in harassment is unacceptable. If there is truth, the matter will, in due course, be raised by other witnesses. Fred Bauder 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Penumbra of NPOV

10) Misplaced Pages's role as an encyclopedia, together with the fundamental principle of WP:NPOV, necessarily implies that all major facts regarding a topic must be given fair coverage, even if those facts are not associated with explicit "points of view".

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. The sun rises in the east Fred Bauder 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Unclear. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

External links

11) The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Which, by definition, precludes linking to an attack site Fred Bauder 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

12) Misplaced Pages is a project to develop a free-content encyclopedia. While the community is of profound importance, its desires cannot substantially override this goal.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As worded sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. A house built upon sand will not stand. Solidarity is the foundation of all collaborative projects Fred Bauder 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Defamation

13) Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication, see Hyperlinking to libel is republishing a libel.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    FloNight♥♥♥ 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Strike for now. I need to do more research and not really needed anyway. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scope of arbitration

14) The scope and effect of an arbitration decision is generally limited to the situation addressed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes, our intent is to deal with this extreme case of harassment not garden variety criticism that might be stated bluntly and unkindly. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Although this is something of a futile gesture. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. While we naturally attempt to make an interpretation of policy in a consistent way, an individual decision is in response to the situation addressed. It may be specific to that situation or only to situations of sufficient gravity, and we may not fully explain in the decision the criteria for that specificity. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Malicious sites

15) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. This makes it more clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. So long as we're talking about linking, yes. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing anonymously

16) Users are allowed to edit anonymously.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too vague and too blanket. There are situations where we may need to impact that anonymity, e.g. the use of checkuser for the purposes of combating vandalism and enforcing bans. This also does not address situations where the user reveals personal information about themselves. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Criticism

17) Misplaced Pages is responsible for responding to criticism whether it is communicated according to our procedures or not.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Applicability of Misplaced Pages policies

18) Misplaced Pages:No original research applies to skilled professional researchers and their work product, however sophisticated. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability applies to specialized disciplines such as literary criticism of science fiction.

Support:
  1. Dumb, and I would support changing it, but our policy. Fred Bauder 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. What does this have to do with the matter at hand? Kirill 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Big shots

19) Any person, regardless of social status, is entitled to fair treatment with respect to information published in Misplaced Pages and to civility during any interactions with Misplaced Pages users and administrators. They have reciprocal responsibilities of courtesy and fairness if they chose to interact with Misplaced Pages and its users, administrators, management, or founder.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too vague without a definition of "personnel". Kirill 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Template

20) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

21) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

22) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

23) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

The attack site

1) The focus of this case is an attack site, AntiSocialMedia.net, which displays moral depravity, being part of an extensive campaign of harassment directed at several users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Which site is this again? Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Attack sites

2) There exist a number of external sites which regularly engage in or assist with the harassment of Misplaced Pages editors, in large part through concerted efforts to "out" the identities of those editors who chose to remain anonymous.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. There are a few such sites, some much worse than others. Fred Bauder 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Additionally, the sites attempt to harass Misplaced Pages editors by outing them and/or by presenting editors in a poor light by exaggerating errors, making false statement, or drawing false conclusions about an editors participation at Misplaced Pages. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Legitimate questions

3) While the bulk of the material produced by these external sites is of no merit or importance, there have been several instances where credible allegations of misconduct on the part of Misplaced Pages editors have originated on such sites. Questions concerning these allegations were raised on Misplaced Pages by editors in good standing with a legitimate desire to determine whether any action was required.

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


Oppose:
  1. Deliberate attempts to discredit and harass Misplaced Pages editors through exaggeration and drawing false conclusions. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. In this case investigation showed that the allegations were of no merit or importance. Fred Bauder 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. This proposed finding stands in a vacuum; as written, it simply asserts. Charles Matthews 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of references to external sites

4) In a number of cases, editors attempting in good faith to protect other Wikipedians from harassment have aggressively removed links and references to external sites, as well as discussions associated with them.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sometimes inappropriately Fred Bauder 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

BADSITES

5) Misplaced Pages:Attack sites is a proposed policy which, in that form, has been rejected by the community. Substantial parts of it have been incorporated into Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, but remain disputed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Inappropriate application of policy

6) In a number of instances inappropriate attempts have been made to extend the principles of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO to sites merely critical of Misplaced Pages and its users' behavior. Those principles and those applied in this case apply only to malicious websites.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. We are clarifying existing policy that it is not incorrect to remove personal attacks and harassment. Links to external sites that harass our editors should not be made and can be removed. This does not apply to links to external sites that discuss Misplaced Pages in a critical manner. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. as per FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

7) Teresa Nielsen Hayden, on her blog "Making Light" posted remarks critical of Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), including a link to an outing of his real name on ED. Will Beback attempted to have the blog characterized as an "attack site", a characterization which was hotly contested by other users. See discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#JulesH_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_deleted_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29_spamming_articles_with_website and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive291#attack_site_question, see also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Teresa_Nielsen_Hayden.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

7.1) There is a subtext struggle over "original research" which lies behind the overt dispute, see letter regarding Misplaced Pages and its science fiction, letter regarding Roger Elwood and letter regarding literary agents

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sorting out

8) Except for obvious cases such as ED it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Misplaced Pages and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise when information is provided about the alleged wrongdoings of Misplaced Pages users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Error

9) From time to time Misplaced Pages users and administrators err, engaging in inappropriate activities which may come to our notice through external criticism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. There is a difference between harshly worded criticism and sites that engage in harassment. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fighting back

10) Persons aggrieved by Misplaced Pages and its users, those banned, subjects who don't like the content of their article, subjects, or notable people, who attempt to edit and feel harassed, etc., sometimes attempt to fight back, and in addition to legitimate criticism, engage in name calling, create critical websites, attempt to determine the real identity of editors, create links to edit a user's page, etc.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tarbaby

11) Once struggle is commenced with Misplaced Pages, or one of its users, on an external site, Misplaced Pages users may attempt to respond with removal of links, or criticism of its initiator. This can rapidly degenerate into a struggle between aggrieved users and supporters of free expression or of the external site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Status differential

11) In contrast to the subjects of articles, Misplaced Pages users and administrators are generally of markedly lower social status.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Irrelevant. Kirill 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

The effect of status differential

11.1) Notable subjects, and editors who have high external status, may feel entitled to ignore input from administrators and other editors, or to struggle with them through the use of an external website or other tactics.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Michael Moore

12) The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Misplaced Pages editor's edits to Sicko, published his image on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both Sicko and the editor's user page and updates on the "controversy". Despite complaints from the user, opinion generally favored retaining links to the site. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Attack_site, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Michael_Moore and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive289#User_Noroton_still_removing_many_links_to_MichaelMoore.com. Negotiation with the site was productive and the material was removed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cyde

13) In response to allegations by the banned user Wordbomb, who has been engaged in a lengthy campaign of harassment of SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a dialog was initiated by Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with respect to the allegations Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive290#SlimVirgin.27s_sockpuppet.28s.29. In addition, the alternate account, long disused, was blocked as a "Sockpuppet of administrator SlimVirgin, used abusively" by Cyde. Cyde had been engaged in a long-running dispute with SlimVirgin . Funnyguy555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a, now deleted, notice on its user pages that it was a sockpuppet of SlimVirgin. Investigation showed the complaints to be stale and of little substance.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

15) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Salt the earth

1) Links to the attack site and references to it may be removed by any user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Remove first and discuss privately to see if the content can be added in a manner that does not harass and intimidate Misplaced Pages editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Ban

2) Any user who creates links to the attack site or references it (other than in the context of this arbitration) may be banned. As there was some doubt about the applicability of this policy, this remedy applies only to future incidents. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. It is not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to include links or references to attack sites on Misplaced Pages. It takes the focus off of writing good encyclopedia articles and instead promotes drama by encouraging editors to discuss users instead of content. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

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)
Abstain:

Editors encouraged

4) All editors are encouraged to show due consideration for the feelings of other Wikipedians, and to refrain from idly or frivolously making references to attack sites.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes mutual support is a foundational principle of collaborative projects Fred Bauder 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scope of this decision

5) This decision applies only to links to and references regarding AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Misplaced Pages users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Misplaced Pages and its users' behavior are discouraged.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Scope of this decision

5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Misplaced Pages users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Misplaced Pages and its users' behavior are discouraged.

Support:
  1. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Second choice Fred Bauder 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Other sites

6) A number of disputes regarding other sites are referenced at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence. These may be considered if a Request for Arbitration limited to a particular dispute is made and accepted.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Only as a last resort. I hope the community will come together and be more supportive of editors being harassed and ArbCom will not need to rule on every case. We need to encourage editors to focus on writing the encyclopedia and not engage in prolonged discussions about other editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

A wait

6) Before an external site is characterized as a malicious attack site and links to it removed, a period of investigation should occur, including attempts to negotiate with the site regarding the objectionable material. If it possible without republication of sensitive material, the matter should be discussed at a forum such as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If not, discussion may be on a private mailing list with suitable participants.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The problem with this remedy is that it has the potential to expand the number of editors exposed to harassment. If a person or site is known by a few editors to engage in extreme harassment then I see no reason for it to be discussed on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Doing so will likely increase the number of editors involved in situation and open them to harassment. Linking to the site also gives the site the attention that they are seeking for their campaign of harassment. Please be clear that I'm not talking about well known web sites that are now focusing their attention on Wikipeia editors. These sites are already well known. I'm talking about sites that most users would not know about if they are not directed there by a notice on AN/I. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Abstain:

Advice to aggrieved parties

7) If you are dissatisfied with the article on you or your project, or regarding how you are treated on Misplaced Pages, please communicate on our talk pages or use our dispute resolution procedures.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

When in Rome

8) If you chose to interact with Misplaced Pages by creating an account and editing or by interacting significantly with Misplaced Pages users and administrators, it is recommended that you honor our policies and guidelines. This includes interacting appropriately with Misplaced Pages administrators.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Doesn't need stating if one includes only on-site interactions, and unworkable if one does not. Kirill 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Cyde

9) Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Sends the wrong message. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Cyde

9.1) Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is suspended as an administrator for 30 days.

Support:
  1. Second choice Fred Bauder 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As above. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) After warning, or without warning in the case of users familiar with the issue, users who link to the attack site or reference it may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Arbitration proceedings exempted

2) No prohibition on referencing external material imposed by this decision shall be applied to evidence submitted as part of an open request for arbitration.

Support:
  1. Kirill 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Opens the door to systemic trolling in the case of the worst sites. Fred Bauder 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

This is all that is necessary or appropriate. Fred Bauder 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, we need considerably more than a restatement of the MONGO ruling here. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.