From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Template 4.1.2 Harrassment 4.1.3 Combatting harassment 4.1.4 Links to attack site 4.1.5 Solidarity 4.1.6 Re-publication of deleted articles 4.1.7 Guilt by association 4.1.8 Requests for deletion 4.1.9 Support of harassment 4.1.10 Karma 4.1.11 Right to edit Wikipedia pseudononymously 4.1.12 Most Wikipedians edit pseudonymously 4.1.13 Outing sites as attack sites 4.1.14 Personal morals and ideals 4.1.15 Wikipedia is not censored 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Template 4.2.2 Harassment of MONGO 4.2.3 Attack article 4.2.4 Editing on ED 4.2.5 Method of harrassment 4.2.6 Rootology 4.2.7 Weevlos 4.2.8 Links to ED 4.2.9 Karwynn 4.2.10 Encyclopædia damatica 4.2.11 MONGO 4.2.12 Deletion review 4.2.13 Badlydrawnjeff 4.2.14 Encyclopædia damatica 4.2.15 Provocative material on ED 4.2.16 Involvement on ED by Wikipedia users 4.2.17 Deletion of ED 4.2.18 Fuckface 4.2.19 Encyclopedia damatica as an outing and attack site 4.2.20 Template 4.2.21 Template 4.2.22 Template 4.2.23 Template 4.2.24 Template 4.2.25 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Template 4.3.2 Links to ED 4.3.3 MONGO 4.3.4 Editors of ED 4.3.5 PrivateEditor 4.3.6 Encyclopedia damatica article 4.3.7 Rootology banned 4.3.8 Non-consenting links to personal information 4.3.9 Links to controversial information 4.3.10 Template 4.3.11 Template 4.3.12 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Enforcement by block 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Harrassment

1) It is unacceptable to harass another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seconded (subject to reasonable definition/interpretation of "harass") JackyR | Talk 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combatting harassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seconded in limited way, if this means the same as NPA. But not if it means a ban on low level stuff which may be perceived as harassment by the recipient but not by many other people, since such a ban may impede the normal business of Wikipedia (discussion or criticism of articles or an editor's actions, etc). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackyR (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 September 2006.

Agree with this proposal, but feel it could be worded better. It says "harassment of a user . . . this includes harassment directed at the user". I presume that Fred means that the harassment may be removed by the user at whom it is directed. I suggest something like: "This also applies when the person removing the harassment is the person at whom it is directed." AnnH ♫ 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to attack site

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Rootology was banned indefinatly yesterday for the truly stupid things he did in the past 24 hours, his user page has also been blocked for the same reason:

"22:16, 8 September 2006 Fred Bauder (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rootology (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (links to harassment articles on Encyclopedia damatica) "

So he has no ability to defend himself here.

Signed: Travb (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support this proposal. AnnH ♫ 14:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solidarity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a dangerous suggestion. In disputes, many people on both sides feel "under attack". This suggestion encourages admins to divide into two (or more) camps, each primarily supporting a user instead of looking to the good of the encyclopedia. Each camp would then call for the other to be desysopped as "uncooperative". It would be extraordinarily damaging. Further, where would be the boundary between criticism and "harassment" or "attack"? No, let's continue to apply the rules which already exist against Incivility and Personal Attacks, rather than phrasing new ones for a given incident and discovering unwelcome corollaries. JackyR | Talk 21:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but supporting other users when they are under attack is part of the burden of responsibility. Fred Bauder 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. But there remains the question, when is a user "under attack" and when are they being rightly investigated or sanctioned (or indeed described as a "troll")? It would be terrible if the act of investigating became the basis for accusations of attack. And anyway, my troll or rouge admin is your respected user who should be cut some slack for their understandable lapse. And what I see as a victim of attack is to you a user who should brace up and get over it... So let's stick to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and being nice to people who are having a hard time. :-) JackyR | Talk 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this phrase:

I can agree that WP editors and admins do, from time to time, come under internal or external "attack" of one sort or another, which any reasonable uninvolved third party will be able to see as such.

That such an abusive attack is in progress should not justify bending or breaking other WP rules regarding the treatment of other WP editors and admins. The responses need to be justified and proportional per existing WP policy.

It is one thing to acknowledge that the community will act to defend its members, which is merely an observation and is clearly morally right and a good policy for WP. The community or its members bending its rules unnecessarily to defend its members is a rather different proposition. See "excessive zeal". It's one thing to say that there was excessive zeal here and accept that and move on; it's another to leave a lingering hint that excessive zeal in the future may be considered acceptable under certain poorly defined circumstances.

As I have said elsewhere, thinking preventively and not punitively, it is important IMHO for Arbcom to try to discourage future cases of "excessive zeal". Merely pointing out that a real attack is in progress on AN/I is usually plenty sufficient to generate much more admin attention and prompt policy-compliant countermeasures to terminate the attack, and often the attacker.

My two cents. Georgewilliamherbert 00:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is not a typical case of questionable admin conduct during a content dispute. What is important in this case is the harassment of a user (MONGO). In dealing with this case, WP must not create ANY means of permitting or extending gross attacks of the kind MONGO continues to suffer as a result of the organized campaign here and on ED (as evidenced on the MONGO and MONGO 'factual' pages there). If a site and users do to a user what was done to MONGO, a 'sensitive' process is not required. Complaints about admins 'bending rules unnecessarily' in response to such harassment are unfounded (or at least, way out of proportion to the ongoing attack on MONGO), and way off the radar from the core issues of these incidents MONGO suffered. Swift and decisive action, of the kind MONGO took, is appropriate - and if any of the users here experienced an attack of the kind MONGO has, you'd understand his frustration and single-mindedness around self-protection. It is not the community's ability to keep admins from acting on matters with which they are involved that is at the heart of this issue - it's the community's ability to swiftly and decisively deal with ill-intentioned users. In this case, the behavior is inexcusable, it continues to this day, and it won't take a back seat to 'process' or 'rules-bending' complaints. Such clear, vile and egregious abuse of users (like MONGO) is not to be tolerated or equated to minor gripes about that user's logical response if WP is indeed to be any different than the ED drama funhouse. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire reason that I have continued to push these points is that ultimately, this degree of WP admin emotional and enthusiastic overreaction is as dangerous to WP as the attack incidents are. There is a slippery slope here, and this incident took a step down the hill. The various people attacking MONGO are inexcusable and to the degree that active attackers are parts of the WP community, they should be properly sanctioned, indef bans being perfectly appropriate. But the process of identifying and making administrative response under WP policies does not require abandonment of those policies. Acting within the policies will be fully effective, and the more scrupulously you follow them the better.

Ultimately, people who truly believe that we have to damn the policies and abandon the high ground in pursuit of worthless abusers can turn out to be as dangerous to Wikipedia as the attackers are, regardless of the fact that the admins are longstanding well respected positive contributors to Wikipedia. Nobody here has gone so far down that road that there's such a clear and present problem... but that's the road you're on. I have seen this exact thing happen to internet communities before. The results are very predictable and completely destructive. Please turn back. Destroying yourselves and a good portion of Wikipedia's admin community goodwill to try and stomp worthless people flat a bit harder and faster is not worth it. The only way the attackers can actually really and truly win is if they convince you that you have to escalate excessively and outside policy, ultimately destroying the organization from within. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal that it is unacceptable for a user or admin to directly defend themselves (or even one another) from obvious attack is what's dangerous. Healthy communities (in real life as well as online) do not require individuals to stand by and allow themselves to be violated awaiting community response. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of real life self-defense. Nobody is going to die or be raped if a WP editor or admin remains slandered for briefly much longer. In cases of slander online, archiving makes "deletion" of attacks pretty meaningless. In cases of private information release online, sometimes one can get it removed from various archive sites, but if a miscreant has that information they can publish it elsewhere. In the case of ongoing active harrassment, removing the latest vandalism and blocking the latest sock does not make the attacker go away.

If you do not have the perspective to see and understand the differences between online harrassment and real life harrassment or attack, and know how and why it is important to react somewhat differently in each case, then with all due respect you are a dangerous person to be around.

What is happening to MONGO is a bad case of online harrassment. Anyone who thinks I don't have sympathy for him is sorely mistaken. I have been through this myself, the first online case nearly 20 years ago now and a couple of times since then. One of those escalated from online into real life, a couple of physical altercations and an arrest. I can completely understand being worked up about it.

Worked up is not justification to go out and do things destructive to the community. Evidently, the attackers have you and some others worked up to the point that you are now dangerous to the community. So they've won. The question that remains is whether tomorrow, they will still have won, or whether you and the community will have decided to not let them win. Georgewilliamherbert 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying I 'do not have the perspective to see and understand the differences between online harassment and real life harassment' is plainly untrue, and inappropriate. In this instance, the online attack has a real-life component (the 'factual' page on ED). I see that MONGO did NOTHING destructive to the community to rate anywhere near (or eclipse, as you repeatedly suggest) the kind of attack he responded to. Equating the use of good judgment and existing WP behavior (complete intolerance of overt RL attacks) in the interests of protection of users with somehow 'letting the trolls win' is unsupportable. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What real life component? Has someone attacked him with a club on his way to work? Called his boss up and complained about his WP edits? Threatened his (I assume that page is accurate, I have no actual idea) fiancee on the phone?

Posting someone's real life id info online is not a real life attack. A real life attack is being punched or having someone pull a gun or knife on you, or at the very least someone having made a real world information attack such as harrassing phone calls to you, your friends or relatives or employers, etc.

It is quite serious to have people going around posting personal details online that you want kept private. But it's not a real life attack. You do not have perspective here.

Posting the info may in fact break the law - in many states, and possibly federal statute, publically identifying personal information on law enforcement officers is against the law, and if he works for DHS those laws may apply. I certainly would support him taking legal actions to curtail the info release and harrassment. ED is not above the law. Georgewilliamherbert 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Discounting me as having 'no perspective', ignoring my argument and not responding to the essence of the issue (how WP responds to RL attacks) are more logical fallacies. At this point I have made my point enough times for my own satisfaction. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here. I would wonder if we were having a linguistic gap, but your userpage says you're a native english speaker. We do evidently have a terminology gap.

In my internet experience to date, the phrase "Real Life" has referred exclusively to events in which there was an active action of some sort outside Internet based electronic communications interactions. Based on my experience I believe that has been and remains the standard usage in all internet communities I am aware of.

Under that definition, based on information I am aware of, there has been no real life component to the harrassment of MONGO. I am not aware of any phone calls to him, his family or friends, employers etc. I am not aware of any mail or packages of a suspicious or threatening nature delivered to his house or workplace. I am not aware of any physical confrontations or assaults which have happened as a result of this campaign.

If any such have happened and not been documented where I have seen them, I apologize for my ignorance, but I can only act based on what info is public or I am otherwise aware of.

I do not know of a single standard phrase to describe the release online of real life information about someone, other than "privacy violation", which seems sort of weak in context.

That is not an attempt to minimize what I understand is happening, which is significant and concerning. This is only an attempt to place labels which are consistent and mutually commonly understood upon the relevant facts of the case. In the terms used as I am using them, and I believe to be proper standard usage, there is no "Real Life" component to this harrassment campaign.

The "privacy violation" is rather more serious than a mere edit or flame war, yes. But a privacy violation is not in the same category as threatening phone calls or physical assaults. This is not a meaningless differentiation. Georgewilliamherbert 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for attacks on it's users. It is likewise not a platform for publicizing or furthering such attacks - a site with a page soliciting for 'real life details' a Wikipedia user is an egregious, and serious, violation that does not require sensitivity on WP's part. When you posted here first, MONGO stated that he felt you had 'an axe to grind', and I must admit I'm finding it hard to understand how you can seriously be attempting to minimize the severity of the ongoing attack on MONGO by wikilawyering for any other reason than an attempt to leave him with 'a scolding' for what was eminently pro-WP behavior on his part. The evidence bears this out abundantly. As I said before, if it were happening to you, you'd feel differently. WP is not ED. And this section is called 'solidarity', which is about the community's right and expectation to support users abused/attacked in this way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. This (Wakefield massacre) is about Real Life. I spent hours on email and phone calls with various members of the press ([1]) after Michael McDermott killed seven of his coworkers. Various privacy violations have happened to me before, including a real life identity theft. I have had several online harrassment or stalking incidents happen to me since 1987, one of which resulted in an attempted assault (real life attack with fist) on me and eventually an arrest. I've had a large crazy organization harrassing and calling my wife and I, and at one point attempting to "stake out" the house. A fromer friend of my wife and brief aquaintence of mine lost it and spent a couple of years terrorizing his (formerly sexually and physically abusive) father via internet and eventually phone, and he eventually was convicted on federal charges and spent several years in federal jail.

It is in no way minimizing what MONGO is going through to put it in perspective. Posting someones personal data is an invasion of privacy, an attack of sorts (and the other stuff on ED about MONGO is clearly an attack), and a pretty lousy thing to do. But it's not an actual literal real life incident. And needs to be kept in perspective in comparison to such things.

If Wikipedia is screwing with our rules over things only as bad as an invasion of privacy and harrassment campaign, how are we ever going to survive with our policies and credibility intact if one of these quite much more serious things happens? Georgewilliamherbert 06:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

George wiki isn't a blog. Most of the folks I know are truly here to be creative. I'm sorry you have had these things happen to you. Why didn't you call the FBI? I'm not the least bit concerned about any physical harm coming my way. I am also not a law enforcement officer, but have been in the past. From my perspective, as clouded as it may be, I definitely feel that I have every right to protect myself and I don't think that when I am being personally attacked in this forum, that I have to run to another admin. Bear in mind that not once did I block rootology, Badlydrawnjeff or SchmuckyTheCat and the one time I blocked Karwynn, it was on an unrelated matter. As far as all the other blocks I did, each was reviewed, and not once was a single one of these editors unblocked. I get the feeling you think I have acted without restraint, but you have no idea how many times I wanted to just say, the hell with it and block someone...many, many times over this incident I wanted to do that. My online experience is pretty much just wiki...I post to one other website that is dedicated to a land management areas and to Wikipedia. Not once have I posted to a blog or anywhere else I can think of...so perhaps my limited online experience makes me less educated in the edit wars and other nonsense that is "normal" on many websites.--MONGO 07:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The local police were involved in the things which were aimed at me and mine. The aquaintence who terrorized his father was investigated by the FBI and eventually arrested by them, though that was their investigation (we were vaguely aware he was doing something, but not exactly what or the extent, until they arrested him). McDermott would have been reported to the FBI or others had anyone on alt.engr.explosives had any idea he might be unstable, and a couple of potential evildoers who popped in that newsgroup were reported to the FBI by me and others. (That reminds me, I should update the article on the Wakefield massacre sometime).

I don't mean to suggest that you haven't generally acted with restraint. You clearly didn't take the vast majority of the opportunities or provocations presented to you and then do something abusive in return. But I feel, and others feel (Fred Bauder's "Excessive Zeal", Kelly Martin's comment, to name the two closest) that you are going a little bit too far a little bit too often.

I have said this elsewhere in the various pages for this RfAr that I believe that your interactions with the ED people are also having the effect of egging them on, and thus are counterproductive.

Every internet medium (email, mailing list, chat, Usenet, blogs, phpboards, wikis) handles abuse issues slightly differently, but they have come up everywhere. And there are patterns of behavior and reaction, which are very different than in real life because people treat each other differently when it's "just a screen name on the monitor" rather than a real human being they're seeing attached to it. And that certainly cuts everyone involved a little, not just the attackers doing things they wouldn't in real life but people responding to them as well.

The trolls have developed online personas which are by normal society human interaction standards sociopathic, though they're probably not particularly evil or bad people in real life. Ultimately the damage I see done to groups by trolls is done by the group to itself, reacting to them. Eventually overreacting to innocent users and creating friction within the group where there was none, dividing into camps, etc.

In most cases the troll can't be permanently forced to go away. Establishing a boringly predictable, fair and clearly communicated community standard and response makes it boring for them, and they leave on their own. Going aggro on them in any fashion gets their interest and they stay longer.

As much as I support the goal of "making them go away", the method to accomplish that, in my experience, is modifying the community response so that the community response doesn't give the trolls satisfaction. Most of them have such short attention spans that once the response is consistent and boring, their halflife is typically weeks or a month.

I don't want to suggest that having done this all for 19 years means that I'm right. I haven't edited Wikipedia for all that long (only a year), and like all formats it's a bit different than the others. But where I see similarities and destructive patterns, I can't in good conscience not say something. This is preventive, and not preventive in the "MONGO will misbehave again if we don't..." sense. I want to push the admin community to behave a bit more consistently, which I think will defuse situations more reliably and avoid accidentally causing fights where there wouldn't have been one. I want admins to have response criteria that they consistently understand and can communicate and apply. Though it's not part of the underlying incident here, the example a bit ago with different usage of "Real Life" is an example.

It's sort of late, I've typed too much and I have more work to do. I hope the above makes sense. If not I'll clarify in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor addendum: I, too, prefer to be here to be creative. I consider every day where I end up doing more administrative WP stuff than content adding to be a bad day. Not having many good ones, unfortunately 8-( Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Georgewilliamherbert may know that for the first six months I was on wiki, if I had been in the same room with Tony Sidaway or RyanFreisling, they would have taken turns smacking me upside the head. I'm flattered that this is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time now.--MONGO 06:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread has taken a very personal turn. Can we go back to the original statement (4: Solidarity). It is sweeping. It suggests rules to deal with a specific attack; but these rules once extant will apply to everyone - and will cause chaos. This is Bad Law.

We - Wikipedia- must indeed all hang together: if we encourage faction-forming, we will hang separately. So I echo GWH: "I want to push the admin community to behave a bit more consistently, which I think will defuse situations more reliably and avoid accidentally causing fights where there wouldn't have been one. I want admins to have response criteria that they consistently understand and can communicate and apply." This is for the good of Wikipedia and for individuals.

Note: no one in this thread is objecting to supporting a user under attack: people just differ about the wise way to do it. JackyR | Talk 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is an explicit statement of our current policy applied toward Wikipedia Review during the ongoing harassment of SlimVirgin. Current practice is one of the accepted sources of authority, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. Fred Bauder 15:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I see in the wording of this proposal is a reaffirmation of existing policy. Please note that there are distinct diferences between the random trolling which may make a few personal insults and concerted efforts by one or more individuals that are making an effort to "out" an editor via ongoing and termangent harassment. Editors such as SlimVirgin, MusicalLinguist, Gator1 and Katefan0 have all endured far worse situations than I have, in which their privacy was/has been invaded, and which, in the last two examples, led to these editors leaving Wikipedia. This proposal, I think, helps to ensure that Wikipedia and it's editors stand behind those that are enduring the kind of harassment which may creep over into real life or which causes an editor to feel so threatened that they have to leave the project to protect themselves.--MONGO 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are already using the existing rules to support yourself, SlimVirgin, etc, then we do not need an extra rule which takes on a life of its own. The last phrase is particularly problematic: "desyopping uncooperative administrators". Desysopping an admin is done for egregious actions. This phrase seeks to desysop people who disagree with actions taken against an attack. If this disagreement takes the form of egregious action, no extra rule is necessary. If it does not, how could desysopping be justified?

No one was desysopped in this instance, so to a certain extent we are treading air. But suppose Fuckface had managed to become a sysop and had chosen to engage in some wheelwarring. Bottom line, we're going to nail em. An administrator who actively supports harassment or works closely with those engaged in harassment, or constantly carps at those who try to grapple with the situation will not be an administrator for long. Basically, if they support the idea that people can be driven off Wikipedia by abuse, they should not be administrators. Fred Bauder 09:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, your interjection bundles different types of behaviour. Wheelwarring, that's bad in itself. Assisting in harassment, that's also bad in itself. No extra laws needed. But "carps at"? Do you mean criticizes? You would have people desysopped for criticism? Thank you, no. JackyR | Talk 16:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know little of your affair and am not commenting on it: I hope it is resolved. I am looking beyond this case and I foresee wikilawyers making hay with this statement, applying it freely to the most trivial of disagreements, and am just suggesting we don't dig ourselves this particular pit. JackyR | Talk 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that any desysoppings would happen to any admin unless they were found to be either directly involved in harassment or highly supportive of it. If you read WP:STALK, they are a few prior arbcom rulings which help set the parameters of what a harassment situation consists of.--MONGO 06:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-publication of deleted articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

This is an extension of not linking to sites which host offsite attacks. Material deleted from Wikipedia as defamatory or violating privacy should stay isolated from Wikipedia; linking to a site which hosts such material is not so very different from linking to the material itself. These are wikis, for the most part, and it is a matter of trivial ease to add a link to the sanitised page so that the second clisk puts the reader in front of precisely the content which we have judged unacceptable. We do not, I think, delete for privacy and defamation terribly often, and when we do, we mean it. Links exist to provide references and sources, and sites which will publish what we would nto touch with a barge pole are neither appropriate references nor trustworthy sources. Guy 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt by association

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

This is regarding content on external sites, not WP, as I understand it. Mentioning WP policies regarding content here is a red herring relative to external sites content there. Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. When I edit at Uncyclopedia, I am a completely different person than I am here. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps it would be wise to ask at the very least for a declaration of conficting interest. Where spam articles are created by officers of the company, their arguments are often given less weight due to their vested interest, although material facts are of course taken into account; harrassment of delete advocates by those with a vested interest in content is a perennial problam, occurred here and might justifiably be subject to a clarification in regard of its acceptability or lack thereof. Guy 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Would this logically lead to not declaring a conflict of interest being an actionable offense? Because I'd hate to try and define the line of where someone might consider me to have a conflict of interest in editing... All the work on space related articles and computing related articles are things I get paid for. Do I now need to put a disclaimer up on any comment I make relative to deletion of any such article (or other admin actions relative to those topics), under your proposal? Are conflicts "things you're paid for", or "things you're interested in in real life" or "things you're employed in or a hobbyist in" or ... Yuck. Can of worms. Georgewilliamherbert 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support of harassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Emphathetically seconded. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karma

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Honestly, like I said, users' actions elsewhere should have no effect on their Wikipedia standing unless personal attacks are involved. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but we are not going to get after users who closely monitor folks known to edit on hostile sites. Fred Bauder 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Be careful about how this proposal interacts with the earlier proposals about harassment. JackyR | Talk 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right to edit Wikipedia pseudononymously

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Most Wikipedians edit pseudonymously

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Outing sites as attack sites

12) 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 Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

I honestly don't know how to feel about this. I'd say change it to disallow linking to the attack pages, not the site entirely. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, game over. Fred Bauder 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Once we have started down the route of only banning some links, we run the risk that the second or third click will end up at an attack page. It's akin to hate speech: the mature response is to shun it firmly and without entering into further debate. Guy 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal morals and ideals

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's on nihilwiki, not here. Fred Bauder 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

13) Wikipedia has traditionally not been censored (Risk disclaimer, Content disclaimer and Wikipedia is not censored), with decisions being based upon the merit of inclusion rather than purely upon the nature of the content itself (Wikipedia:Profanity).

Comment by Arbitrators:

We remove objectionable material of several sorts on a regular basis. One is personal attacks and harassment of users. Fred Bauder 18:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, then :) Things are generally easier and seem far more logical when the above is stated, and reply is made :) Thank you LinaMishima 18:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by myself. An obvious point that deserved being mentioned much earlier. LinaMishima 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Harassment of MONGO

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Attack article

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Editing on ED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Method of harrassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Rootology

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was involved in the Bantown deletion debate and strongly argued against deletion of Encyclopædia damatica, see [2]. In addition to complaining about MONGO's efforts to defeat harassment [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], complained about Mongo's edits to ED Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details. Rootology was himself involved in tendentious editing of Encyclopædia damatica [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Rootology admitted that the PrivateEditor account is also his, so I never asked for a checkuser verification.[9]--MONGO 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] Weevlos

6) Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has copied charges against MONGO and other administrators to User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence. These were originally placed on his talk page by Trazombigblade [10].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Links to ED

7) MONGO takes the position that links to ED may be removed on sight [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Karwynn

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Encyclopædia damatica

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

[edit] MONGO

10) MONGO was criticized for removing the link to ED while it was protected and made this response [12]. This is while the attack page on him was the featured article on ED. The debate on page protection. He has made accusations regarding rootology and SchmuckyTheCat Discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

The comments I made about rootology proved true, no? The comments I made about SchmuckyTheCat were based on his own admission that he does behind the scenes wok at ED...which he stated on the request for arbitration page.--MONGO 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Deletion review

11} Deletion review

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Further updates have been added concerning this matter to my evidence section.[13]--MONGO 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I see that the "Webmaster" on the ED website posted a comment he made here on his userpage there.[14]--MONGO 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff states he is "gone" and they can feel free to desyop him.[15], and that was his last edit there under that username.[16]--MONGO 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, broadly stroked ideological reasons[17], "stop the Neocon POV pushing hockey goons".--MONGO 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need I remind you again: "My affiliation or lack of affiliation with rootology has no bearing on your "excessive zeal" (nor on your lack of evidence)." Travb (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I hadn't thought that anything here had anything to do with politics. What lack of evidence? Let's get this straight...you made a pretty hostile comment on an afd earlier today [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], adding personal attacks both in your edits and your edit summaries. You were blocked [24]...then emailed the blocking editor that you would be good I suppose, so he unblocked you. You came to my talkpage to apologize [25] and removed the comments you made on the afd[26]...then, in less than an hour, you discover that rootology is in trouble [27] and your next stop is this arbcom[28]...I think you have a problem and all you're doing is making it bigger.--MONGO 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:CONSENSUS Hmmm...so are we no longer talking about our edit histories? "Not once had you posted anything to this arbcom unitl after you saw what was possibly going to happen to rootology" And your point is? Are we talking about friendships now again?

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

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

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

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

And FYI, Rootology messaged me.[29] That is what got me involved with this case. I have known about this case for weeks, and added no comments, up until one month ago, I didn't know rootology. But why are we talking about this, when you haven't said anything about your edits? Subjects which you brought up.Travb (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have had at least some interactions with rootology...I have never worked with Fred Bauder prior to this arbcom...not that we are in any way working together...in fact, a few points I brought up here, he dismissed. You do understand that you are accomplishing nothing here? What is the goal you seek? The point for this section is, I think that Badlydrawnjeff has fought a long battle to save and to restore the ED article and that makes me question his complete disassociation with that website. That is my opinion, I have a right to voice it, and, if you noticed, Fred does not agree with my opinion very much.--MONGO 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While i agree with keeping the ED article, I do however think Travb has been out of line, beware the passive agressive, many wrongs, many apologies. Peace and love MONGO. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to largely stay out of this flamewar, but I must ask - why do you assume I'm still affiliated given my history here? I fight for a lot of articles I think are worthy of inclusion, why fail to assume good faith here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because, your efforts to save ED from deletion, your efforts to have it restored and your actions overall regarding the issue, give me the impression that you have, at a minimum, allegence to that website still. I have that opinion...it isn't shared by Fred Bauder to my knowledge, but I am entitled to have that perspective from the chair I am sitting in.--MONGO 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever really have an "alliegiance" to begin with? Isn't this all idle, unnecessary speculation, given that it's not really based in anything but your admittedly biased perception (I say "admittedly biased" given your recent comments about my blocks yesterday, not out of nowhere)? Isn't this the same type of speculation that folks like rootology are in hot water for? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My perception is my right....that no one else may agree with it, is their right. Did you read my comments above? Did you fail to notice that rootlogy is most likely in hot water over the choices he made earlier today when he started editing the way he did...or was that illusionary? Maybe the evidence that rootology=PrivateEditor=Faceface is strong enough that Fred decided he would propose an indef ban on rootology and PrivateEditor. What more is there to say on this issue...nothing really, since arbcom isn't planning, as far as I know, to impose any penalty on you for past involvement with that website.--MONGO 19:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"My perception is my right" When you are deciding the fate of several wikiusers, you need just a little bit more than "perception" and "opinion" User:MONGO. You have consistently failed to provide any evidence of this. When asked to provide evidence, you attack the person who asks, repeatedly, and never acutally provide any evidence.

"Maybe the evidence that rootology=PrivateEditor=Faceface is strong enough that Fred decided he would propose an indef ban on rootology and PrivateEditor." We are talking about the fate of Badlydrawnjeff, please stay on topic.

You already stated that this was your "opinion" and have provide no evidence whatsoever.

"since arbcom isn't planning, as far as I know, to impose any penalty on you for past involvement with that website." Then why is this section here? If there is no evidence, why do you persist in attacking other users who ask you to provide evidence? Travb (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia damatica

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Per my above comments, this is simply factually incorrect. It looks like even "wiki"--not even WP itself--stuff is a fraction[ttp://encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Category:Wikis_Suck] of their content[ttp://encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Special:Statistics]. rootology (T) 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I personally don't like ED, as it's a shock humor site that isn't that funny. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provocative material on ED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seconded. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement on ED by Wikipedia users

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

People's conduct outside Wikipedia, whether on ED, Uncyclopedia, or elsewhere, unless it involves attacking editors, should not have any affect on their stadning here, especially for those whose edits have been constructive. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Other than karmic effects, no. Fred Bauder 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of ED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Doesn't matter. It could be nominated for having purple text and that would not get it deleted if the delete arguments were all references to the nomination. The closing and uninvolved admin gave a clearly argued case for deletion. Wikipedia is not a court of law, deletions don't get thrown out because the nominator didn't say Simon Says in the correct tone of voice. Guy 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about those of us who argured for a compromise? Do we count? Sir Crazyswordsman 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You count and were counted, just not mentioned in the proposal. Fred Bauder 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuckface

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Encyclopedia damatica as an outing and attack site

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Accept. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Accept. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Links to ED

1) Links to Encyclopædia damatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ED should be treated just like everything else. The article was deleted due to lack of notability, not due to its (true) suckage. As a result, if it has notability within a context of something else such as LiveJournal, it may be linked to from other articles just like anything else, so long as the links aren't to personal attack pages. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal states links may be removed. I think that is clear. If we are going to allow links to the site, then we aren't ever going to endorse recrating an article about the site.--MONGO 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not talking about recreating the article. His rightful comment is that due merit should be considered. If the link adds something to the article, then it should stay. LinaMishima 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems utterly preposterous that we won't link to the site, yet in the future even entertain the idea of having an article about the site again. Why give trolls a platform for abuse, and why spend wasted hours ensuring they don't link to an attack page. Any website that goes around spouting off and supporting the common usage of homophobic, libelous, anti-Semitic and racial commentary isn't worth having an article about. I highly doubt they will become notable enough to be of any great loss to wikipedia if they don't have an article about them here...an article about them hardly contributes to the sum of knowledge we seek.--MONGO 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What happens in the future is beyond our control. It's just to inherently and permanently ban an entire site, even if crass and offensive, seems like Wikipedia has some sort of bias, and that would violate WP:NPOV. Deletion of the article is something I endorse, but an outright ban on ANYTHING can never be endorsed. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure it can. Especially if their "notability" isn't significant enough to override the detriment of having an article about them. I think the bar of notablility is simply too low anyway, even though I do believe this encyclopedia should generally be all encompassing.--MONGO 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The key word is "if." We don't know what will happen in the future, ever. I just don't want to go making pre-assumptions about anything, because they are against Wikipedia policy. Also, Wikipedia having an official opinion on a website is against Wikipedia policy. Sir Crazyswordsman 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of these policies so linking to them is unnecessary. I stated that I find the bar of notability too low and should be higher, and cannot find any reason that Wikipedia would suffer if it does not have an article on encyclopedia damatica. As it stands now, (and I am aware that several editors are making efforts to find a way to get ED to pass the bar of notability), in situations such as the ED website, I feel the notability would need to be much higher than that required for other articles, based on the simple fact that ED endorses trying to identify Wikipedians on a personal level, and that due in no small part to this issue, I view an article about that website would encourage good faith editors to simply leave. Wikipedia has a right to defend itself, and if the arbcom deems that one way to do this is to ensure that in situations such as this, the notability is higher than usual, there is nothing wrong with that.--MONGO 19:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this has been presented yet, the linksearch list shows some hundreds of links to ED; I don't mind unlinking them. Guy 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That should probably wait until this is accepted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At least some of those should probably be removed now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

If you wish to propose that, you certainly can and arbcom will examine it and make their decision. Are you insinuating that there is an admin cabal? My guess is that a lot of admins don't even like me...[30]--MONGO 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

MONGO may have reacted more strongly than is appropriate, Being upset is really no excuse. My proposal is that we note it, but forgive it as that is not the major issue here. If he continues to get worked up every time someone attacks him, it will become an issue. Your attempt to tie politics into this matter is lame, unless you maintain that slander is a common Stalinist tactic. In this case there is a principle that harassment is not tolerated. If the hope is to knock MONGO off Wikipedia by harassment, that tactic is rejected. Fred Bauder 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Well said. Georgewilliamherbert 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet it still doesn't discuss possible precedents in similar situations in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We will cross that awful bridge when we get to it. Fred Bauder 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems rather cavalier, but very well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the notion of excessive zeal on my part is ridiculous. My response was restrained compared to what my full abilities would have been had I chosen to simply start blocking everyone that was termangently, repeatedly nagging and prodding me to the point of my thinking I should leave the project.--MONGO 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Not sure if I support the "excessive zeal" wording or not, as I haven't seen all the details of this case (though I saw the RfC and the deletion review, and some of MONGO's responses). However, I've seen enough of the background to this to say that I fully support the "no action". There's a huge difference between admins using their tools in what Badlydrawnjeff calls "emotional situations" that relate to subject matters they feel some emotional interest in because of their POVs (for example, when strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice admins edit abortion) and admins using their tools to fight harassment directed against themselves. If there's a lesson to be learned from this case, it's that admins need to be more aware and more available. I've seen some comments (e.g. in the RfC) where MONGO is chastised for what he did, but given the nature of what was happening, I think the real problem is not what he did, but what I and other admins didn't do. Given the circumstances, I think one could make the case that he acted with some constraint. AnnH ♫ 11:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made the point elsewhere that in my opinion, MONGO posting requests for help with this to ANI would have resulted in other admins promptly arriving to assist, without the personal emotional involvement in the issue. It would have been better and cleaner for Wikipedia had he done so in some of the cases where his actions caused further controversy.

Other admins may not have been right there watching for further attacks, but are usually no further away than ANI. And in a relatively clear case of ongoing harrassment, tend to react rather forcefully. Which is, despite my criticisms of methods in this case, appropriate - the harrassment was uncalled for, inappropriate for WP, and stopping it was entirely a legitimate thing to do. Georgewilliamherbert 00:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO should be let off the hook, but I don't want this to be a free pass for MONGO to block people who he is in a debate with or protect an article and then edit it. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors of ED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Suggest "are or were." Nandesuka 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This should be common sense to all. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PrivateEditor

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Rootology admitted that the PrivateEditor account is also his, so I never asked for a checkuser verification.[31]--MONGO 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Encyclopedia damatica article

1) Encyclopedia damatica is an attack site which oftentimes deliberately tries to harass Wikipedians and post personal infomation. Not only should all links to said website be removed on sight, but an article about the website should not be recreated on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't support this. Wikipedia is not censored. Fred Bauder 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --MONGO 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship ahoy! --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're not going to allow links to this wesbite, then why would we have an article about it?--MONGO 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We would have an article because it is notable, see Stormfront (website), another site we do not regularly link to. Fred Bauder 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that site, and won't, but does it habitually use it's pages for the purposes of harassment...ie WR/Hivemind?--MONGO 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never looked at it that closely. Fred Bauder 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If we would have an article about it because it's notable, then surely we would simply have an article about it, especially if other controversial websites have articles? (The best case here is an "untill such as time as it is is notable", I suspect) LinaMishima 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So when the site meets whatever community-based notability standard (which it does now, but we'll let that sit for the time being), this becomes moot? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is that website so important? It isn't...so I understand one of your goals to to recreate the article when it meets the absolute barest level of notability...for what gain? There are tens of thousands of articles that haven't even been written yet...ie: there are wilderness areas, forests, National Parks, animal and plant species, rivers, lakes, mountains, buildings, historical events, geological history, human history...the list goes on...and all of that is more worthy of inclusion here than a homophobic, racist website that tries to also personally attack wikipedians and post personally identifing information that any passerby can use to harass Wikipedians with.--MONGO 17:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See Wikitruth, specifically they are a pure attack site on wikipedians, but have an article. Someguy555 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Side note, that article also specifically links to Wikitruth articles on Wikipedians, as a primary source. Someguy555 17:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: suspected sockpuppet account, only active on this RfAr LinaMishima 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the consideration of Wikitruth. Karwynn (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rootology banned

1) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed by - Fred Bauder 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (directly at Proposed Decisions)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied to Workshop by Georgewilliamherbert after spotting it in Proposed Decision, for discussion purposes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-consenting links to personal information

7) Any links added outside of ArbCom without the consent of the user directly to personal information about them or clear personal attacks should be removed without warning, and the user who added them warned for incivil conduct or attacking another user. Any such links may only be posted by the user in question themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This belongs in policy it is so good, see Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy. Fred Bauder 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Slowly feeding the proposal at Wikipedia:Respect privacy, so it should be soon (well, it is, but such is wiki :P) LinaMishima 05:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by myself. This really should never be limited to a single website, it's quite a potential problem. LinaMishima 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to controversial information

8) Controversial information may only be linked to if doing so would substantially add to an article or discussion and cause little harm. Such links should be restricted to directly relevant locations only, and are required to point to the least offensive content possible (even if this may not be the most direct reference).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia:NOT evil. Fred Bauder 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am opposed to this completely. The bar of notability is too low, and the efforts to reestablish an article on that website when or if it meets the barest minimal level of notaility is not substantive enough a justification for supporting the inclusion of a racist website that promotes the harassment of anyone. I would say that due to the nature of the website, an article about it should only be recreated if they significantly surpass the already too low bar of notability.--MONGO 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you are misinterpreting this as an attempt to restore the ED article. Indeed, I agree that currently ED is not notable enough (my proposal statement mentions this). This proposal is intended to restrict links to such sites to only were they add significant value, and to restrict said links to less inflamatory parts of a website (eg, not linking directly to attacks). Such issues will come up again, so the more general proposal makes sense to protect against future misuse. I would have thought such measures would have been welcomed. LinaMishima 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All this would do is lead to arguments about what is and what isn't substantial, which we already do, on many Afds and Vfds. Besides, I think that the other proposal by Fred Bauder is best, in that links to ED can and should be removed on sight.--MONGO 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by myself. Again, a general rule is normally the best course of action. This would allow a new ED article when it becomes notable enough, but prevent any attacking content from being linked to. More importantly, this would protect against future problems. LinaMishima 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Enforcement by block

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

I haven't commented on this RfAr before but over the past two days I have been glancing over this discussion at some distance, so I know what's going on. After personally looking through ED I agree with this proposal. I do think that even Travb's example should not be allowed as even though the specific pages that he links to are not that defamatory, the site on which they are hosted contains some very nasty attacks and privacy violations of some Wikipedia users which have previously been featured on the front page - which is only one click away.--Konstable 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, you make some good points. How about this:

Users who insert links to Encyclopædia damatica attack pages may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Are you advocating that I should be booted for my links to Encyclopædia damatica?

Question to User:Badlydrawnjeff: Does Wikitruth have attack pages like Encyclopædia damatica? If the answer is "no" this is a bad example. Travb (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does and the article also links to them as primary sources. Someguy555 17:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: suspected sock account LinaMishima 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is yes, and are typically much worse than anything ED comes up with for WP folks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is ridiculous, even though I hate ED and think it's an offensive shock site. Except for attack pages, which are prohibited under policy, we should remind everyone that Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps we can make this a temporary remedy for a few months so we can put this all behind us, then treat ED like we would anything else (ie if it has notability give it an article and if it doesn't delete it?) Sir Crazyswordsman 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: