Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by User:Dtobias

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Terms such as 'harrassment' are used in such a vague way as to cheapen any actual harrassment that has happened

The justification presented for stringent link and reference bans is the occurrence of harrassment against editors, which carries a lot of emotional baggage by making one think of really serious assaults that leave people in fear for their lives, and engenders sympathy for the position of the claimed victim. However, there are many cases of the same people who are pressing this position stretching terms such as "harrassment" to, and past, the breaking point by applying them to things that a reasonable observer can see are simply an effort to conduct a constructive discussion on an issue which may involve an editor's behavior. A very good example has fallen right into our laps on this very evidence page, through this edit by MONGO: (diff) Anybody who proclaims that stopping "harrassment" has nothing whatsoever to do with chilling legitimate commentary should examine this. And anybody who criticizes others for "cheapening" harrassment by equating it with innocent things should also ask whether this is another case of such.

[edit] Respectable news media don't share our taboo against 'linking to attack sites'

It's sometimes been said by advocates of link bans that we're being no different from the mainstream media; you don't see them linking to hate sites, do you? Well, actually, mainstream and respectable media, in their online editions, often takes the attitude that all sides of an issue being discussed should be directly linked to in order to let the reader see all the facts. For instance, in this New York Times article covering the Bagley vs. Weiss conflict that's central to this case, and how it's spilled onto Wikipedia and other sites, the article includes a direct, live, link to AntisocialMedia as well as to Wikipedia (which they get wrong, calling it "wikipedia.com" instead of the proper ".org"). They do this in the context of calling both sides of the fight "like 14 year old boys". Clearly, the "attack site" link taboo is not shared by The New York Times.

[edit] Opponents of 'attack sites' even link to them sometimes

A clear sign that a taboo on linking to so-called "attack sites" is not something that comes naturally is the fact that even people who denounce those sites have been known on a number of occasions to link to them in the course of making their own points about them. From Felonious Monk last year to Erik recently to Cberlet in this very case, they take the reasonable view that it's hard to talk about a site and its contents, even to say how horrible it is, without actually linking there.

[edit] Evidence presented by Alecmconroy

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

[edit] Teresa Nielsen Hayden

[edit] Don Murphy

  • Don Murphy is notable American film producer whose filmography includes "Natural Born Killers", "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," and "Transformers". Murphy maintains an official website.
  • In 2005, an editor creates the "Don Murphy" article, including an external link to Murphy's official site in the very first edit. [104]. The link to Murphy's site remained on the article for the next two years (surviving 250 or so edits).
  • Sometime prior to July 2007, Murphy included comments on his website that attack Wikipedia and its editors.
  • An editor, describing Murphy's site as "attack site against wikipedia editors", purges the link to Murphy's official site. [105]
  • A heated and disruptive edit war ensues: [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]
  • Ultimately the page is briefly protected, after which the link has remained in the article.

[edit] Michael Moore

  • Michael Moore is an Academy-Award winning director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, two of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time. Moore maintans an official website.
  • In 2002, the Michael Moore article is created, and a link to Moore's official site is inserted. [131] The link to Moores's appears to have remained on the article for the next five years (surviving several thousand edits).
  • In August 2007, Moore's official website attacks a Wikipedia editor.
  • An editor, describing the link as a "harassment link", purges it from the article. [132]
  • A heated and disruptive edit war ensues: [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]
  • Ultimately, the link is restored.
  • Most importantly, several respected editors & admins suggested that that MONGO/BADSITES/NPA did indeed mandate the removal of the links to Michael Moore-- among them are MONGO and ElinorD. The removal of the links has also been endorsed by Arbcom member Fred Bauder[159]. This suggests that the application of MONGO/BADSITES/NPA to MichaelMoore was not just a fluke, a random occurance, or a bad-faith vendetta. Rather the edit wars occurred when intelligent administrators acted in good-faith to implement MONGO/BADSITES/NPA. Without further clarification from Arbcom & the community, we should expect incidents like this to repeat themselves in the future.

[edit] There is currently no consensus to ban links to all "attack sites"

[edit] Consensus exists to cover "attack sites" if they are notable

[edit] Wikipedia Watch

  • Wikipedia Watch is a website which is highly critical of Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia Watch meets the definitions of an attack site. A substantial amount of its content is devoted to revealing the real names, home addresses, dates-of-birth, and even photographs of Wikipedia editors. (I'm not providing an evidence link for obvious reasons.)
  • Wikipedia Watch is a notable website-- having been featured in articles by New York Times article[160], the Associated Press[161], CNN [162], etc.
  • The editors of Wikipedia appear to have reached a consensus to cover (and link to) Wikipedia Watch. The Wikipedia Watch article has survived multiple AFDs. The article references Wikipedia Watch as a source (with link), and the article also provides a link to the site's frontpage.

[edit] Wikitruth

  • Wikitruth is a website which is highly critical of wikipedia.
  • Wikitruth meets the definitions of an attack site. A substantial amount of its content is devoted to outing and humiliating Wikipedians. (I'm not providing an evidence link for obvious reasons.)
  • Wikitruth is a notable website. It has been featured in articles by The Village Voice[163], The Guardian [164], The Register, [165], and Slashdot[166].
  • The editors of Wikipedia appear to have reached a consensus to cover Wikitruth. The Wikitruth article has survived multiple AFDs. The article refernces Wikitruth as a source multiple times (with links) and the article also provides a link to the site's frontpage.

[edit] Wikiscanner

  • Wikiscanner is a website which "provides substantial identifying information about Wikipedia users".
  • Wikiscanner is a highy notable site, covered by lots of major media.
  • Consensus exists to cover and to link to Wikiscanner
  • The use of Wikiscanner has been endorse by Jimbo, who said "It's awesome—I love it. It brings an additional level of transparency to what's going on at Wikipedia".[167]

[edit] Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

[edit] Policy against attack sites used to impede discussion

On August 25th, the administrator and long-time community member User:Cyde posted to WP:ANI expressing concern about SlimVirgin's past use of multiple accounts. These concerns were prompted by a posting at antisocialmedia.net. [168]

Several other trusted community members, including User:Gmaxwell [169] User:Seraphimblade [170] and User:Messedrocker [171] expressed various degrees of concern about SV's behavior.

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

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

User:Crum375: [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

User:Crockspot: [179] (Note that he also threatened to block people for adding the link, though this threat is mitigated by his not being an administrator)

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

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

[edit] Remove personal attacks rejected

WP:NPA currently states that "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule." This statement echoes the proposed policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. This policy has previously been declared by the arbitration committee to be "controversial," and to be "used sparingly" [180].

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

[edit] No personal attacks is not a fundamental policy

On the proposed decision page, there is a baffling suggestion that no personal attacks is one of our fundamental policies. It is not:

  • m:Foundation issues does not and never has included any discussion of personal attacks.
  • On the original list of policies and guidelines, from April 17, 2002, no personal attacks appears dead last, behind such vital policies as "Always sign your talk page comments," the long-abandoned "Always leave something undone," and "avoid spoilers." [181]
  • No personal attacks is a relative spring chicken as policies go - it was first created on April 23, 2002 [182]. NPOV was first created on February 25, 2002, and clearly has a long history prior to that [183]. Ignore All Rules is an April 17, 2002 product [184]. Cite your sources is from April 19th [185]. This does not suggest that "no personal attacks" was one of the first and most fundamental policies.
  • In its original form, no personal attacks clearly intends to be taken as secondary to any policy regarding article writing. To quote from Lee Daniel Crocker's original, "The only thing that matters is the articles" [186].

[edit] Mention of antisocialmedia.net in Judd Bagley

On September 5th, I created an article on Judd Bagley that mentioned his website, but did not directly link to it: [187].

No version of Judd Bagley in the editing history has ever contained a live link to antisocialmedia.net, and antisocialmedia.net was never used as a source for any claim in the article. As such, discussions of antisocialmedia.net as a reliable source are not germaine to this case.

[edit] External links section of NPA intended to overrule NPOV

Both Crum375 [188] and Mantanmoreland [189] explicitly removed passages that noted that WP:NPOV is the dominant policy, with Mantanmoreland saying that declaring this to be the case would render the external links section "moot". Perusal of the talk page of WP:NPA shows that Mantanmoreland was an active figure in formulating the policy, suggesting that this was an intended interpretation by at least some of the policy's original formulators. Phil Sandifer 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Guy

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

Here, [190] Dan apparently considers that liking to sites which harass, out, attack and otherwise cause distress to Wikipedia editors, is of no real importance. While satirical, this indicates to me a profoundly inappropriate response to very genuine concerns. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donmurphy.net

Donmurphy.net published my name, address, phone number and other details in a thread in their discussion forums. After an exchange of emails, these were removed. Emails will be forwarded to arbcom if requested. As a result of interactions with Murphy, and on reviewing the site in general, the low prominence of the forums within the site, the fact that the forums are not habitually populated by attacks on Wikipedia editors or anyone else, and the fact that following a polite request such attacks were speedily removed, it is clear that donmurphy.net is not an attack site by any credible definition of the term.

[edit] michaelmoore.com

Michaelmoore.com is the official site of Michael Moore, a notable individual. It is an extensive site which has been running for some years. Following a heated editing dispute in which an editor sought to use ratings system of his own devising in order to demote one of Moore's films from its official position as fourth-highest grossing documentary in history, and that editor taking the dispute to the publications of his employer the right-wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute, Moore's site began to carry in its blog section a small amount polemic directed against the Wikipedia editor. This content identified the editor by name.

This was not "outing" by any rational definition of the term, since the editor had been openly editing under his real name for some time and published his movie ratings system under his own name, and was open about it being his own work when discussing it on the article's talk page. Moore's site currently contains three blog-style postings naming Wikipedia, none of which appear to be attacks [191]. Searches for the editor's real name and his Wikipedia username come up blank. If the content still exists it is sufficiently obscured that it is unlikely to be stumbled on from the front page. Michaelmoore.com is not an attack site by any rational definition of the term.

[edit] antisocialmedia.net

Antisocialmedia is run by Judd Bagley, who is banned from Wikipedia as WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The site includes a baseless attack against a Wikipedia admin, SlimVirgin, and a gross distortion of a minor and by common consent insignificant error made some two years ago by that admin. This appears to be motivated by the banning of Bagley for attempts to promote his employer's crusade against naked short selling, in pursuit of which agenda Bagley violated numerous policies and community mores. Antisocialmedia is polemical, was anonymous for some time and has only recently started ownign up about who runs it, and is a tool in promoting a campaign which has been identified by numerous reliable sources as particularly vicious and underhand. Nothing said on antisocialmedia could be construed as authoritative content for an article on anything other than the site, and the site itself is not notable (although its operator is, mainly as a result of his atrocious behaviour towards his employer's opponents). Antisocialmedia is of no evident merit as a source of content, and a review of its content also supports the view that it largely or systematically engages in attacks on individuals. It may reasonably be characterised as an attack site. Bagley also posts to Wikipedia Review.

User:Cyde posted a link to antisocialmedia to the administrators' noticeboard. This was swiftly removed. The link is to a discussion of what is stated to be an alternate account operated by SlimVirgin. The account, Sweet Blue Water (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), had fewer than 25 edits, and had not edited for two years. SlimVirgin was not, at that time, an administrator. The article on antisocialmedia also repeated as fact absurd allegations promoted on Wikipedia Review, that SlimVirgin is an agent of the security forces. These allegations have been heard before and no credible evidence has ever been advanced to support them. The problem in this case was not that removal of the links stifled debate, but that posting the link was at best colossal error of judgement, aiding and abetting a vicious troll with an agenda completely at odds with Wikipedia's commitment to building a neutral encyclopaedia. The ensuing debate was brief and consensus rapidly emerged that there was no case to answer. User:Cyde is open about his dislike for SlimVirgin.

Wikipedia policy is that we do not punish, we prevent. Quite what was supposed to be the outcome of discussing a supposed incident of sockpuppetry two years ago and alleged by an individual who is very obviously attempting to gain revenge for a righteous ban, is not clear. Removing this was absolutely right. Reinstating it was stupid, and prolonged the anguish caused to a long-standing member of the community by many hours.

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is considered banned from Wikipedia (a ban being a block that no administrator is prepared to lift). He is also indefinitely blocked from editing. Posting by or on behalf of banned or blocked users is not acceptable, per long standing policy and consensus. The correct treatment for ban-evasion is revert, block, ignore. The evidence below indicates that in Brandt's case this is not being followed. Brandt has no enforceable right to have links to his site on Wikipedia.

[edit] Edit warring

Edit warring is not "caused" by the posting or removal of a link,it is caused by a failure to then sit down and talk. In this case, it is caused by people standing on principles (for and against links) rather than dealing pragmatically with specifics. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Will Beback

[edit] Regarding Making Light

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

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

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

[edit] Evidence presented by WilyD

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

[edit] Attack sites is overly broad and thoughtlessly applied

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

[edit] Evidence presented by Mangoe

[edit] "Attack site" interpreted narrowly

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

  • In the "MONGO" case, the following definition was given: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." (see here).
  • WP:BADSITES gave the following definition:
For the purposes of this proposal, an attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in any of the following:
  • Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
  • Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
  • Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians
  • When the discussion moved to WP:NPA the following language was typically inserted: "Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Linking to attack sites is not permitted and doing so repeatedly may result in a block." (See diff; this is only one of many similar edits.) The following notes were typically attached:
The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [192] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [193]
  • In all of the cases mentioned above, the naming of an editor was cited as a reason for removing links.

[edit] State of Wikipedia Review links

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

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

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

[edit] Participation in or discussion of "attack sites" used as basis for personal attacks

Personal attacks on those who are known to participate in Wikipedia Review have been a feature of BADSITES discussion almost from the start. A recent example appeared in the discussion of this case, in which User:Samiharris denounced one of the other participants for posting on Wikipedia Review[194]. I've been hit with similar slurs ([195] as an example).

[edit] Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

[edit] Clarification of anti-linking position

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

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

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Evidence regarding Cyde

As sanctions against Cyde have been suggested on the proposed-decision page regarding his handling of the Sweet Blue Water situation, I want to detail the incident in 2006 that triggered his hostility toward me. It's worth mentioning because it involved Cyde misusing his admin tools, being asked not to by me, then e-mailing me to say that, in future, if I have issues with admins, I should e-mail them, not call them on it in public. Since that time, he's made multiple personal attacks against me, on and off-wiki.

There was a revert war on Wikitruth in April 2006. Cyde was one of those reverting. The issue was that Wikitruth had been added to the spam blacklist. Cyde and Gmaxwell were removing links, and others were restoring them. I was asked to look at it as an uninvolved admin. Cyde and I had had no contact with each other prior to this that I'm aware of, and I had never edited the article.

I protected the page [196] on the version it was on when I arrived, which was the one with the links. Cyde ignored the protection and continued to edit it, removing links in three of his edits. [197] [198] [199] [200]

Ta bu shi da yu objected to Cyde editing a protected page, and reverted to the protected version. [201] Cyde's response was to unprotect it [202] and continue to edit. [203] [204]

A discussion ensued on talk as to whether Cyde should have done this. I wrote: "Well, so much for mutual respect among admins. Clyde, you're involved in the dispute. Don't protect or unprotect it again, please." [205]

A few hours later, I received an e-mail from him saying that, in future, if I have issues with admins, I should try to deal with them first by e-mail. Not everything needs to be done in the public eye, he wrote. I agreed with him and e-mailed him an apology.

Since then, he has taken a pop at me at every available opportunity. He has sent people very insulting e-mails about me, which I've seen, and has been repeatedly abusive about me on IRC. It culminated in his posting last month on AN/I about Sweet Blue Water saying I had been "caught red-handed," [206] after leaving a personal attack on my talk page, [207] and blocking SWB with the block summary: "Sockpuppet of administrator SlimVirgin, used abusively." [208] He didn't e-mail me about any of this before doing it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by MONGO

[edit] Badgering

Even after the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO case was settled and the remedy that links to ED "may" be removed, I was harassed about it when I removed only a few links so, many, times, it, could, only, be, because they thought it was funny...to troll my talkpage about something that I was obviously not interested in chatting about. The goal of some editors is to be able to link to everything, even if the arbitration committee defacto bans such links. This editor was warned about his harassment, he was but one of many people who harassed me after I was merely doing as the MONGO ruling permitted and endorsed. The facts of the case are, that partisans for ED and other websites of similar manner will wikilaywer to death any arbitration remedy that results in banning links to websites that post personally revealing information about our editors.

[edit] Misrepresentations

Melsaran misrepresents my comments....Melsaran stated in his evidence "Some users (such as MONGO) think that we should remove links to websites that attack our contributors because they are "attack sites" (even if we do not link to them to attack anyone, see below), but that we should link to websites that harass other people." Preposterous...I don't "support" linking to Stormfront because I think it is okay they attack people....I support not linking to websites that provide personally revealing information about our editors.

StC's evidence is, ridiculous on it's face. ED is a website that has done nothing to "protect" anyone...not when they call people pedophiles...oh is that supposed to be "funny"...haha...and add photoshopped images of our contributors enagaged in sex acts. News flash...there is no article here about ED because that website is not notable. I asked a number of admins and editors on that website to adjust some of the articles there...the result...they made them worse. I do believe that on a few occasions, they did remove some content that was personally revealing from a few articles, but that is not something they do unless they feel like it. StC wants to link to the mainpage of ED...well, the mainpage is where the fight over that website began...they had their libel article about me posted there as their featured article...and ED partisans fought me tooth and nail when I went to delink their website.

[edit] Michael Moore

The website had posted direct links to the open editing window of THF's userpage. I saw that as an open invitation, based on the commentary on that website and the direct links, to vandalize our userspace, and I removed the links to michaelmoore.com from the Michael Moore article. The webmaster there was contacted and the links were taken off their site, after which, the link to the michaelmoore.com website were restored as per consensus from an AN/I discussion [209]. Apparently, arguments about whether we should or should not link to michaelmoore.com continued [210]

[edit] Evidence presented by StC

When this argument moved from BADSITES to being discussed as part of NPA, I said the policy should be four simple words: "Don't link to attacks." What's so hard about that? Attacks. Not sites, not criticism, not gripes. No long-winded explanations.

Put your fragile egos aside and come to grips, editing Wikipedia is a highly public activity that is highly scrutinized. Learn to expect criticism and deal with it and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[edit] Wikipedia editors aren't anymore important than anybody else in the world.

Pretty simple statement. Way too often these "attacks" are being removed because some Wikipedian doesn't like what is being said about them on some outside site whether the outside site is legitimate criticism or just some ranting. We as Wikipedians are willing to link to negative information if it suits our purpose in writing an encyclopedia about other people. Why do we remove information about Wikipedians that we would keep about someone else?

The corollary:

[edit] Wikipedia editors aren't anyLESS important than anybody else in the world.

Wikipedia is the #9 website in the world. It is #4 for general information sites including search engines. It is #1 for hosted information sites (not search engines). Major organizations, of which Wikipedia is one, have a spotlight put on them. They will be criticized. People will examine their internal governance. The literati document even mid-level management news in the local paper while the nutters call up Art Bell. We -Wikipedia- document the major people involved in such major organizations, either as their own article, or through their companies, etc. Similarly, important people at Wikipedia will be looked at by the media. Collectively, and in many cases, individually.

When people volunteer for Wikipedia, they volunteer to be criticized! Maybe that wasn't true in 2004, but it is now. Get over it. And of course, the more you appear like a big player, the bigger you are as a target. Even simple anonymous edits written by vandals occasionally become news items (eg, the vandal who wrote the wrestler killed his wife without knowing the wrestler HAD just killed his wife but the press had not yet reported it.) So, when Wikipedia editors stick their head in the sand and remove any links to criticism or negative attention that is offsite it looks ridiculous to the outside world.

It is also raises a double standard: we "protect" our editors from negative information offsite but we "document" negative information about the rest of the world.

[edit] Wikipedia does not control the outside world

When HighInBC was being real-life stalked, there were dozens of posts on WP:ANI from admins frothing at the mouth asking what to do. All the Wikipedia admin powers in the universe ain't going to do jack shit off of Wikipedia. When dealing with the outside world you can't hit the ban button and make it go away. Wikipedia admins who think removing information from Wikipedia is going to stop negative information about Wikipedia or its editors from spreading is like building sand castle dikes against the oceans turf. Any ArbCom ruling that advocates it will be pissing into the wind - the outside world just sees Wikipedia circling the wagons around the previously noted double standard.

As stated - Wikipedia editors should expect their actions to be scrutinized by outside sources. Gripes, criticism, general ranting - these are not attacks. As advice, Wikipedians who find themselves griped about should take it constructively - there might be something to the complaint. And for those times when the outside world is making an attack: Grow a pair. Seriously, does anyone think they can be a gatekeeper of information on controversial topics for the #1 informational site in the world and not be a target?

[edit] Wikipedia cannot guarantee pseudonymity

Wikipedia allows people to edit under pseudonyms, but not anonymously (both TOR and bugmenot are preemptively blocked). Wikipedia cannot guarantee pseudonymity. What is Wikipedia supposed to do about it? Once that genie is out of the bottle, it isn't going back in. Once information is out there, denying Wikipedians a forum to discuss it (which can be done without taking part in it) is ricockulous.

So many words have been spewed forth about "outing sites" and again it raises the double standard. Why link to sites about Holocaust denial, but not to Wikipedia Review? WR has a lower quotient of nut cases to legitimate thought than Stormfront. The issue of course, is that WR is "attacking" Wikipedians while Stormfront is attacking somebody else. The few times I've went and looked at WR, they had plenty of legitimate gripes in there co-mingled with the nutters and the level of discourse was just as high as wikien-l.

The issue isn't the WR site, it is specific WR posts: "Don't link to attacks." Nothing should prevent linking the frontpages of WR, ED, or Stormfront.

Revealing identifying information is a natural part of any investigative reporting. Wikipedia is a site under scrutiny. Wikipedia allows pseudonymity, it cannot guarantee it. If remaining anonymous is that important to someone then they shouldn't edit any site under scrutiny. Once that information is out there the flurry of activity to keep it off Wikipedia rises to the same level as the worst edit wars that ArbCom always rails against. These sprees of link removal seem to happen once a month, or more - as predictable as the tides and just as unstoppable. The bigger WP gets, the more often it occurs. An ArbCom ruling sanctioning wholesale link removal won't be effective and only exacerbate these edit warring campaigns.

[edit] Protecting users isn't leading to harmonious editing

Lots has been said, particularly by Fred Bauder, that removing all these offsite links to "protect our editors" should lead to harmonious editing. Humbug. It isn't about PLUR or WikiLove or Harmonious Editing Clubs or any of that. There are well-respected Wikipedia editors on both sides of this debate. These cries of "help, help, I'm being repressed!" need to end. Links to real attacks should go. Removing links to criticism as contrived harassment is more disruptive then any link could ever be.

Yes, I'm advocating that some people should not sign up and edit. The #1 informational website on the planet attracts the press, the crazies, and random nobodies who disagree with you and want to soapbox. If there are Wikipedians that can't handle that attention then they shouldn't be here. Wikipedia isn't here to protect editors from people who say things about them; in fact, doing so is a distraction.

[edit] The relevance of the old MONGO case

The language from the old MONGO case should be publicly dumped.

The old findings from the ancient MONGO case get brought up a lot. Way too much. That whole thing was a broken ruling - it vilified everyone who was not MONGO, gave him a noodle slap, and went off to blacklist a site backed up by ambiguous language. MONGO went on to lose his sysop bit for being as insulting as those he claimed to be insulted by. Wikipedia lost good editors while everyone stuck up for him. The remaining problem from that ruling is the language that always gets dredged up about badsites. There are no badsites. Even the specific finding about Encyclopedia Dramatica shows a fundamental misunderstanding about ED.

ED is not an outing site. As an admin there, I can document dozens of occurrences of Wikipedians real life information being oversited from the history. Any true information is only there if it is easily Googled already. ED simply is not an origination site for real life information about Wikipedians. ED even banned several of the Wikipedia Review nutters who wanted it to become one.

ED might be an insult site. But the insults there are so stupid and juvenile nobody takes it seriously. If you call that "vile" you disservice the word vile. You've got no idea how much more vile stuff has been deleted, and oversited, from ED about WP editors. What's left is some callous, but meaningless, name calling and a tiny, tiny bit of real criticism. If that hurts you, ask your mom that rhyme about sticks and stones.

More importantly, ED only became an insult site for Wikipedians after Wikipedia administrators left horrible attacks on ED administrators, including links to employers, phone numbers, and addresses, on Wikipedia. Not only left the information, but page protected it and banned editors who tried to remove it. ED has juvenile name calling about people who can only be references as online identities because Wikipedia hosted calls to arms for REAL LIFE HARASSMENT. Do those crying harassment here on WP understand the difference between being called names online and having people call your boss at work?

Every ED admin sympathized with HighInBC because we put up with that level of shit everyday, in real life, not online name-calling.

Advocating some form of BADSITES and using ED as an example is self-righteous hypocrisy and willful ignorance of how much ED has actually done to protect WP editors. Further you need a bucket of cold water to the face to realize just how despised Wikipedia is by a non-minuscule contingent of the public.

[edit] Evidence (not) presented by Str1977

[edit] The most compelling evidence would, once submitted, increase the harrassment

Hallo, there is a problem with evidence for violations of privacy. It is not easy for those who sympathise with harassment victims to produce such tangible evidence without themselves violating privacy further. Do we want to hurth victims further by posting links to the stalking sites just to show how bad these sites really are. I don't think so!

So what kind of evidence could we supply? A transcript of the interview an administrator had with her boss when he had been sent photo-shopped pornographic photos of her? A video of another administrator's mother shaking with fright when a stalker had phoned the house, having found her details on Wikipedia? A copy of an e-mail from a harassment victim saying that she had a sick feeling in her stomach every waking minute, that she couldn't eat or sleep, and that it was making her light headed? A screenshot of the website where some pervert was posting his fantasies about parts of the body of one of his victims (an administrator whom he had met on Wikipedia and whose identity he had discovered on Wikipedia), and his speculation about her menstrual cycle, along with her home address and phone number? A photocopy of a letter from a university to a Wikipedian giving permission to take an extra year to finish a course because of the way the pressure of being stalked had disrupted her life? Receipts for someone's increased medical expenses? A tape recording of a Methodist minister's interview with his Bishop, after the Bishop received an anonymous letter from some Wikipedian stalker?

This is not a standard arbitration case, and there is very little evidence available in the form of diffs. Apart maybe from the contributions (in the form of numerous featured articles, etc.) made by the harassment victims. If the harrassers had their way, these editors would be gone along with their contributions and Wikipedia would suffer as a whole. I think that this more than compensates for any hypothetical loss in quality to the encyclopaedia (and IMHO it is very, very hypothetical since the links we are talking about are not to any quality content) that might result from the removal of a link. Str1977 (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by Melsaran

[edit] Wikipedia should treat its contributors and other people equally

Some users (such as MONGO) think that we should remove links to websites that attack our contributors because they are "attack sites" (even if we do not link to them to attack anyone, see below), but that we should link to websites that harass other people. Stormfront is a neonazi site that encourages hate against jews, blacks, etc, and we link to them, because it doesn't attack our contributors, but Michaelmoore.com is an otherwise perfectly relevant site that happened to feature an article that attacked a Wikipedian, and the links were aggressively removed from all articles. That's just selfish. We should either remove any and all links to websites that attempt to harass other people, or allow those links to remain when they are relevant to the article, and are not used to harass anyone.

[edit] "Attack sites" not used for actual harassment or attacks

Some vigilant removers of "attack sites" think that Wikipedia has an obligation to remove websites that attack Wikipedians from article namespace, even if those links are not actually used to harass people. The original ruling in the MONGO arbitration was meant to stop the harassment of MONGO and other editors by inserting links to external websites were all sorts of personal attacks and attempts at outing contributors' real life identities were posted. In this case, the links were relevant to the article (we do always link to the official website of the subject of an article, see WP:EL), and they were not used to harass anyone. The fact that a relevant website contains an article that attacks a Wikipedian doesn't mean that you should remove the links to that website from encyclopaedia articles that have nothing to do with the internal ongoings at Wikipedia. Links may be removed when they are used for harassment, not otherwise.

[edit] Furthermore

I strongly encourage everyone to read User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy for further information about this.

[edit] Evidence presented by Mantanmoreland

[edit] Wikipedia has a moral obligation to protect its volunteers, and itself, from harassment campaigns

The focus of this case is a website called antisocialmedia.net. This website was founded anonymously by a person later revealed in the media, and acknowledged to be, Judd Bagley, an executive of Overstock.com. Bagley is not a teenager in pajamas who is upset that he was banned from Wikipedia. He is a professional public relations executive who is engaged in a smear campaign that targets Wikipedia editors along with a long list of other real and perceived critics of his controversial boss, Patrick M. Byrne, who is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Overstock itself is under SEC investigation.

During the time that it operated anonymously, this website may have been in violation of the federal anti-cyberstalking law, which prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet.[211]

The targets of Bagley and antisocialmedia.net include a teenage blogger who criticized Overstock.com, several journalists, and private citizens using message boards. One of the latter included a well-known citizen activist who provides information to the SEC. Bagley had previously created similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" in mainstream investment media. [212]Wikipedia editors are a substantial but by no means sole target of this website, which has received notoriety in the media as as part of what Bloomberg news described as a "creepy strategy."

The website has become so notorious that it has spawned a critical website of its own [213].

The purpose of antisocialmedia.net is to silence and intimidate. Insofar as Wikipedia is concerned, its purpose is to intimidate, frighten, silence and harass editors and administrators viewed as hostile to Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. (Overstock.com supports this website verbally but denies any connection with it.)

To further this objective, Bagley engaged in a sustained harassment campaign that including sending anonymous threatening and menacing emails, some of them containing spyware, to a Wikipedia administrator. [214]

To make things the whole picture even creepier, Bagley was ostensibly hired to operate a wiki called "Omuse." This may be the first time that a professional, for-profit competitor of Wikipedia has engaged in a systematic campaign against this project. I am not a lawyer and cannot address the legal implications of his doing so.

Wikipedia has every right, and in my view a moral obligation, to protect its volunteers and itself from websites engaged in smear campaigns and professional public relations executives carrying out "unofficial" missions for their employers. That can be effectuated without any impact whatsoever upon the content of Wikipedia. When antisocialmedia.net's "creepiness" gushes into the media, as it has, and when that warrants mention in the project, links to the reliable sources mentioning this site are more than sufficient. Bagley should not be rewarded by propagation of his smear campaign within the website of one of his targets.


[edit] Evidence presented by Durova

[edit] Honorable tradition of pseudonymity

Some of the individuals who attempt to disclose the real world names of pseudonymous Wikipedians have insinuated that pseudonymity is itself objectionable. The practice is fully compliant with GDFL licensure and Wikipedians who employ it join the not-so-illustrious ranks of:

...and beware that shady figure Agnes Bojaxhiu... DurovaCharge! 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU

In the time I have spent addressing and discussing the issues of the application of the MONGO decision and opposing the formulation of new policy, or the amending of existing policy, to reflect the absolutist argument of the banning of linking to off-Wiki sites referred to generally as "attack sites" I have noted a pattern of ad hominem comments, and misrepresentation of concerns regarding personal attacks, directed at some of the proponents of the non-absolutists position. While almost all contributors to the debate have mostly commented on the issues, the various violations of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:Civility have sometimes poisoned the discussion.

The following are as such examples, under various categories;

[edit] Misrepresentation of non-absolutionist position

In the various debates over various forums there has been an effort to portray (some of) those who are against the principle of banning links to "attack sites" as being advocates of links to such sites, and the attack material therein, find the concept of personal attacks as amusing or trivial, or are arguing for the compulsory linking to such sites:

[edit] Subjective representation of various off-Wiki Sites

During the discussions emotive and otherwise subjective language has been deployed to taint, decry and demonise sites which are given as examples of "attack sites", reflecting upon those whose arguments would allow for the potential of allowing linking:

[edit] Claims of Conflict of Interest in permitting links to "Attack Sites"

During debate, the (speculated) affiliations of some participants with off-Wiki sites which may fall under the definition of an "attack site" have been utilised to ignore or otherwise denigrate the expressed views. Further, the motives of other participants have been questioned in regard to the particular site(s):

[edit] Examples of disregard for the ongoing debate regarding linking to "Attack sites"

Some participants (and non-participants) in the debate have indicated that they are determined to follow an interpretation of NPA, BADSITES, & ArbCom#MONGO in the removal of links, and the sanctioning of "violators", in defiance of the lack of consensus in the application (or validity re BADSITES) of such policy:

[edit] Allegations of "Strawpersons" regarding pro-absolutist postings

There have been unsubstantiated claims that actions and comments reflecting a purported pro-absolutist position may infact have been anti-absolutionists seeking to damage the absolutist position.


It is my contention that my evidence points toward the conclusion that the wording of the MONGO decision DID NOT clarify the situation as regards attack sites, and indeed engendered a schism between those who sought to use the rationale to restrict linking to sites defined by an interpretation of "attack sites" to all and any that may have hosted personal attacks - including the publication of personal details - and those who believed that the decision referred only to the personal attack content itself.

[edit] Evidence presented by Pleasantville aka Kathryn Cramer

[edit] The policy tends to be applied by people in process of a loss of temper; conflicit of interest issue should be considered

I was peripherally involved in both instances in which the policy was applied to Making Light.

In both cases, the policy was enforced by an admin who had lost his temper;and in both instances the action was taken by an admin who objected to something said about himself. In the first instance, following the loss of temper, Jimmy Wales interceded to try to patch things up; in the second, WP legal counsel, Mike Godwin interceded. Wales and Godwin shouldn't have to clean up after this sort of mess.

It seems to me that the policy should NEVER be enforced to suppress information about oneself, and that conflict of interest rules should trump any policy prohibiting links to "attack sites." Friends or close associates of editors who feel they have been attacked should consider whether to recuse themselves on the basis of conflict of interest.

[edit] Correspondence in the first Nielsen Hayden incident

The following is from an exchange of emails initiated by Jimmy Wales concerning the dispute between Will Beback and Teresa Nielsen Hayen with the subject header "A quick attempt at peace". Participants in the discussion were Cory Doctorow, whom I had written to, and who asked for Wales's intervention in the matter, Jimmy Wale, myself, and Will Beback, with TNH inclusded as an address on the correspondence. There was also some correspondence between Wales and TNH about the matter which I have not seen. The following passage is from my first letter to Wales and Beback (ccing Cory & TNH), dated May 29th.

I am disturbed that Teresa's personally feeling that she was essentially harassed out of participation in Wikipedia has not been taken more seriously by the Wikipedia community. Teresa is famous in the SF community as a copyeditor, and as somone who ferrets out errors and corrects them. Her book that is part about correcting errors, Making Book, is a winner of [was nominated for] the Hugo Award and is gracefully written and widely admired.
I do not know the blow-by-blow, but I have known Teresa for 24 years and have never known her in the past to claim harassment when no harassment took place. She is patient with the slow and uninformed, but is capable of defending herself from attack, and has survived some very large opponents in the past. Leaving her to vent her unaddressed feelings to her own, rather large, constituency was unwise.

I see very little here in the way of attempts to address why a well-known professional with an established reputation and a large constiuency that adores her would feel harassed by BeBack et al in the first place, prior to Will Beback's loss of temper and deletion of links to her site.

--Pleasantville 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The letters themselves

Here are 6 letters, comprising about 4,800 words, I wrote in the above discussed exchange, not written for publication but in the interest of promoting a peaceful understanding of what had gone wrong an how it could be fixed. The letters all had Jimmy Wales's subject line, "a quick attempt at peace, and were circulated to Will Beback, Jimmy Wales, Cory Doctorow, and Teresa Nielsen Hayden. I post them here in hopes that they will promote a more complex understanding of the situation that lead to the Will Beback/TNH blow-up and how such incidents could be avoided in the future, and what conflicts between subcultures underpin this dispute:

[edit] an apology to Will Beback and an expression of concern that TNH felt she had been harassed out of participation in Wikipedia (quoted above)

letter #1, dated May 29th, 2007

[edit] anonymity, pseudonymity, fear of exposure, and fear of stalking

letter #2, dated May 29th, 2007

[edit] Wikipedia and its science fiction entries

letter #3, dated May 30th, 2007

[edit] TNH & the Roger Elwood article

letter #4, dated May 31st, 2007

[edit] Addressing a couple of points raised by Will.

letter #5, dated May 31st, 2007

[edit] TNH's expertise on the subject of literary agents

letter #6, dated June 1st, 2007

Since these were not written for publication, it is my intention to remove these letters once this process is complete. --Pleasantville 14:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever policy is made should be universally enforceable

Policies related to "attack sites" seem to be enforced on behalf of a very small group of people, mostly admins. When I raised the subject of sites which attack me, some of which attack me in the context if editing Wikipedia, in a previous discussion of the BADSITES, Slim Virgin archived my remarks as "old" in a very short time, I think it was under 24 hours. (When I objected to SV's archiving, MONGO volunteered to look into it, but as I had already provided names of the sites in question, he could have just dealt with it based on what I had alreay said.)

The message was clear enough. Whatever the policy was, and whoever it was intended to protect, it wasn't intended to protect me. If there is a policy, there should be a noticeboard open to EVERYONE to report such links and an evenhanded enforcement to go with it, as with BLP. And there should be reasonable procedures to follow in such cases so that there can be no appearance of temper tantrums or vengfulness. --Pleasantville 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(I guess I should add that in the situation described above, I am not just talking about what could be called a negative review, but rather actual harassment which was part of a pattern of behavior that had been reported to and discussed with law enforcement agencies, and in one specific situation involved the supporters of a violent convicted felon.) --Pleasantville 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by ElinorD

[edit] There is a precedent for having sensitive issues dealt with discreetly

A few months ago, an admin called Henrygb was unexpectedly found to be using a sockpuppet, or sockpuppets. A member of the ArbCom got in touch with him and asked him to contact the ArbCom privately. He failed or refused to do so, and was asked again. Only when he repeatedly failed or refused to offer an explanation in private was he desysopped and a brief statement made by the ArbCom to the community.

There was some earlier case regarding another admin who was found to be using a sockpuppet. He also was given the opportunity to offer an explanation in private, and was desysopped only when he was unable to satisfy the ArbCom in private. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-12/NSLE desysopped. A member of the ArbCom wrote "Why do you need to know? He knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action."[215]

[edit] When something sensitive is handled privately, some people complain, then everyone moves on

The discussion at the Admin noticeboard concerning NSLE's desysopping showed that some people accepted that the ArbCom was trusted to act privately when it felt this to be necessary, others complained a bit, and eventually everyone forgot about it. There was no reason to suppose that everyone had to know or had the right to know the private evidence in the case of accusations made against SlimVirgin, stemming from a campaign of harassment against her. In the event of the Committee deciding she had done something worthy of sanction, a simple announcement could have been made.

[edit] Cyde's handling of the Sweet Blue Water allegations was highly inappropriate

At the end of August, based on evidence posted by a banned user at an attack site, Cyde decided that SlimVirgin had been guilty of sockpuppet abuse. If he found the evidence to be compelling, it would have been appropriate for Cyde to bring it privately to the attention of Jimbo and/or the ArbCom. Instead, he went to SlimVirgin's page, and left a crowing message — something that an administrator should never do in a case where he is blocking someone.

"It's funny Slim, all those times you impugned my integrity. And now it comes out what you've truly been up to. I never stooped nearly so low, Slim."[216]

Since he couldn't keep himself from crowing over her, he showed clearly that if a block had been necessary, he should not have been the one to implement it.

Then he blocked an account that had not edited for two years, putting in a nasty little dig about "admin SlimVirgin" in the block log.[217] Again, there was absolutely no justification for jumping in like that when there was no danger to the project in leaving the account unblocked while privately requesting an explanation. He then wrote:

"SV isn't perfect" is a freaking understatement. I guess you don't know what happens to editors who get in her way, but I've tasted it. It typically involves an intimidation campaign, both on-wiki and through email, coming from her and her friends."[218]
This again showed that he had a personal grudge against her.

The Sweet Blue Water account had not been used for two years so there was no urgency to do anything. There was a precedent for giving established respected users an opportunity to offer an explanation in private. The "evidence" came from a known stalker who had been banned from Wikipedia. The "evidence" was not confirmed. There can sometimes be an innocent explanation for two people showing up on the same IP. A public investigation could not be carried out without publishing what might be SlimVirgin's IP address, and simultaneously linking just one or two clicks away to stalkers' speculation about her identity and about another anonymous contributor's identity. Finally, Cyde showed himself to have a personal grudge against SlimVirgin, so it is quite obvious that some his behaviour was highly inappropriate. The argument is sometimes made that we should be allowed to link to attack sites in such cases, but no reason has been offered as to why submitting evidence privately to the Committee would cause greater harm than the possible harm of increasing and supporting harassment. I quote again Jdforrester's words: "Why do you need to know? He knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action."[219]ElinorD (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Cyde Weys

[edit] Response to the recently proposed "remedy"

I fail to see how the proposed remedy follows from the proposed finding of fact. I don't see how you can get "desysopping" from "In response to allegations by the banned user Wordbomb, who has been engaged in a lengthy campaign of harassment of SlimVirgin, a dialog was initiated by Cyde with respect to the allegations." Especially because, as I've repeatedly said, I never even dealt with WordBomb before, thus I didn't know who he was, and wasn't aware there was a connection between him and AntiSocialMedia.net anyway. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reponse to SlimVirgin's "evidence"

This is in response to SlimVirgin's claims of what happened I first tangled with her on the Wikitruth article over a year ago. First of all, I didn't even remember this incident, and had to go look up the details just to compose this response. Apparently SlimVirgin is much better about carrying grudges than I (and to be candid, if I had to pick an incident that made me start doubting SlimVirgin, it certainly wouldn't be this forgotten one).

It doesn't help SlimVirgin's evidence that she is totally misrepresenting what actually occurred. She tries to paint it as an edit war with me and Greg Maxwell against a large number of other editors, but in reality, many administrators were removing the links on advice of the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney at the time, Brad Patrick, because Wikitruth was reposting deleted libelous content from Wikipedia, and continuing to link to it could leave us liable (proof). This wasn't editing abuse at all; I was simply following legal advice.

I am very disappointed that SlimVirgin chose to dig so deep into ancient history to try to pin me with wrongdoing, and even moreso, that she painted it in such a distorted light. And as for her claims of "sending people very insulting e-mails about [her]", how valuable is a claim that cannot be substantiated? I did no such thing. Her claims are nothing but wishful hearsay. If she wants to try to say that I've done anything wrong, she had better substantiate it. Right now her track record of complaints against me that she has actually tried to substantiate isn't too hot. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And why the hell is this necessary?

Why the hell is my evidence even necessary? I'm not even a named party to the case! As far as I can tell, this case was about something completely different, then I got dragged into it kicking and screaming by SlimVirgin and ElinorD (and a very unfortunate proposed decision by Fred Bauder). I move that all of this evidence regarding my actions is wholly inappropriate in this case, and if anyone seriously wishes to have me sanctioned, a proper new case should be created where I am a named party from the very start. What's going on here just doesn't make any sense. --Cyde Weys 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

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

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

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