This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

"No personal attacks" in articles

1) Our no personal attacks policy applies to personal attacks on Wikipedia, and does not extend to content disputes in the article namespace.

1.1) Our no personal attacks policy applies to personal attacks on Wikipedia, and does not extend to good-faith content disputes in the article namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. *Dan T.* 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed This simply creates a huge loophole in our NPA policy that enables editors to accomplish in articles what they cannot on talk pages. WP:BLP already provides a precedent for applying the values of NPA to articles themselves. Here we are just going one step furthe to apply this to mention of living persons in other articles besides their own biographies. Phil Sandifer and David Gerard and others have claimed that we must defend NPOV at all costs and that NPOV trumps NPA in all cases. This is not true. It is crucial to note that NPOV is not merely a content policy, it is a personal behavior policy too - it explicitly explains that its purpose is to provide an environment in which diverse editors can work together even when they hold antagonistic views. In this aspect of NPOV, NPOV and NPA are partners and not in opposition. NPOV itself provides its own threshold for inclusion: notability. I would argue that a criticism of a person must be a notable view for NPOV to justify its inclusion in an article. Criticisms of Essjay reported in the mainstream press are an example of criticisms I would accept NPOV as requiring us to include ... but even those criticisms were not "personal attacks." I have yet to see any personal attack against a Wikipedia editor that rises to any standard of notability. To allow personal attacks against editors in article pages would defeat the purpose of NPOV, which is to promote a community of people of divergent views who can work together to create a quality encyclopedia. It turns NPOV into a weapon against the encyclopedia - and turns the encyclopedia into a tawdry tabloid. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the sentiment, with minor tweak that NPA doesn't apply to "Good Faith" content disputes. Obviously, somebody could just vandalize an article, inserting a totally irrelevant personal attack into a completely random page, and I think that, an obviously bad faith edit, would violate NPA. But the general sentiment is good. --Alecmconroy 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, proposed 1.1. Melsaran (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

2) The primary intent of principle 3 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO was to prevent harassment. Evaluation of the posting of links should be viewed in the context of the likely intent of linking, the overall tone and content of the site, the context, and whether the link is validly supporting encyclopaedic content as a verifiably reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; may need some context though, for people unfamiliar with the ED arbitration. Maybe a link to the "original ruling". Melsaran (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sorted. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with some, but not all. The "likely intent of linking" is relevant when deciding whether or not to block and editor. The MONGO ruling said that "Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking" — an extremely wise precaution. However, if some stalking site gets hold of my home address and someone decides to post the link on my talk page (instead of using private email) in order to "inform me about it", I expect my friends and any responsible user or administrator to remove it immediately, without regard to whether the person who posted it was an idiot or a troll. ElinorD (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean - but the likely intent of posting that link would be harassment. OK, calls for speculation, but WP:NOT moot court, we're supposed to work on Clue not strictly legalistic interpretation. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is a bit of a straw man... people have traditionally been given great deference in deciding what content is appropriate on their own talk pages, so no specific policy is needed to delete something you find bothersome there (or to let your friends do it for you). Anyway, I've never noticed any home addresses or phone numbers on the sites that are generally cited as "attack sites" around here (no, I'm not asking for anybody to post links to cases where they've actually published such things, if any!) *Dan T.* 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dan, I have seen an editor's supposed home address and phone number on two attack sites, and a work phone number on a third one. I don't intend to say which sites they were. I'm quite willing to email the information to the committee. And as for being a straw man argument, I have seen people in favour of allowing links using that very argument (the supposed need to inform an editor of something published about him) as a reason to justify allowing them. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't find this information via a Wikipedia link, so the ability to acquire these details are not hindered by the banning of such links. I suppose that the response is that mention of the site names provides a means, but this disregards the potential benefit of being able to link to a site for other purposes. LessHeard vanU 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I "obviously didn't find this information via a Wikipedia link". I can't see how that can be obvious, especially since in all three cases, I did find it from a Wikipedia link. ElinorD (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The strawman part is the idea that we need a categorical ban on the material to allow people to remove it from their own talk pages or to specify what material others can remove. They already have that prerogative and no one is calling for its elimination. ShaleZero 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are by definition bad faith

3) Personal attacks on other contributors are, by definition, made in bad faith. Our policy banning personal attacks does not extend to good-faith efforts, however misguided, to improve Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this actually makes the needed distinction perfectly - it's the line between "lulz Admin X is really named George" and "Hey, I just saw this link on Slashdot and it seems kinda problematic. What's up?" And, for that matter, between "Admin X is ghey (link to ASM)" and "Judd Bagley administers the website antisocialmedia.net (link)." Phil Sandifer 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seems pretty reasonable. *Dan T.* 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I also agree this makes the distinction perfectly. This would restore the whole MONGO / BADSITES issue back to its original legitimate purpose: to stop malicious, intentionally cruel, bad-faith harassments--- not to inadvertantly chill good-faith attempts to improve the project. --Alecmconroy 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

4) Links and references to off-site harassment of Wikipedia editors may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: Why should what we include in an article depend on whether the content involves a Wikipedia editor or not? Paul August ☎ 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think this strikes a balance between linking to off-site harassment and the WP:NPOV concerns that have been raised. I think this would be particularly valuable in situations such as the one we are facing here, in which a corporate officer sets up a website one of whose aims is to harass Wikipedia editors in furtherance of his employer's perceived interests. It's a good general principle, but it applies in this case which involves a very unique website.--Mantanmoreland 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might say 'should' instead of 'may.' I'm dubious about crafting general policy to accommodate unique cases. Those are better handled by sensibly applying and ignoring existing rules. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I oppose this; making any consideration related to whether Wikipedians feel "harrassed" by something be a part of the editorial process at all is inherently non-neutral, as it's giving the feelings of Wikipedians special status. Editorial decisions should be made based on editorial considerations, period. Links added for good-faith encyclopedic purposes should never be treated as if they were harrassment or personal attacks. *Dan T.* 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Having ones violation of policy, guidelines, rules, law of the land, and other dubious practices being linked to off-wiki may indeed have an editor feeling "harrassed", but it is still legitimate comment. LessHeard vanU 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely oppose, per dan. Viridae ^Talk 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As worded, oppose; "harassment" is to vague. There are, however, some cases where harassment of editors should be removed, even without a clear editorial reason to do so. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. "References to" harassment? Now you're not even talking about links and sourcing - you're talking about scrubbing the content of articles. ShaleZero 06:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support With one caveat: such sites must have achieved a reasonable level of notability which is already a requirement for NPOV. In my experience, no attack-site directed against Wikipedians is notable except to those people who like attack sites, which really is a fringe group of Wikipedia readers. I consider a link to an attack site to be a form of personal attack. NPA is clear: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia" - anywhere means anywhere. I have yet to see any =cogent explanation of why it is important to name attack sites in an article and provide a link to them. Never. They are gratuitous, and to insist on including reference to an attack site gratuitously is to me evidence of bad faith. I have yet to see any example where adding such reference/link is at all important to making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Our focus should be on "creating the best encyclopedia article possible". This policy would shift the focus to "creating the least objectionable encyclopedia article possible, so long as it doesn't actually violate NPOV". --Alecmconroy 10:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4a) Links and references to off-site harassment may be excluded from an article, if doing so does not affect the neutrality of the article. Notable or significant harassment may be documented by reference to independent review in secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Slightly revised version, which is more to the point per Paul's comment above. We should not be linking to any harassment without a compelling reason. We have problems with attack sites and blogs being linked to biographies all the time, attacks on editors are a ctually a minor part of this problem. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not suppress criticism of itself

5) As we are a top-10 Web site with much influence in the outside world, we must expect that we will be the target of criticism, and not all of it will seem reasonable, responsible, polite, or even sane to us. Nevertheless, it is important that we avoid giving even the appearance of suppressing or repressing criticism of us, or subjecting individuals or Web sites to "guilt by association" because their possibly valid criticisms are presented alongside less reasonable ones.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An attempt at a statement of why banning links to critic sites is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying we must avoid giving "even the appearance" is a bad idea. We shouldn't base our editorial decisions on what other people claim we're doing. Also, it's one thing for a site to just criticise Wikipedia in general. It's quite another to attack specific editors, and links are rarely removed in cases of the former. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe it's too strong a statement... certainly, when it comes to encyclopedic content, the perception regarding "censoring criticism" shouldn't be a factor in either direction. However, when it comes to dealing with commentary in project and talk pages, we should err on the side of not appearing to squelch critics. *Dan T.* 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is a meaningless statement. Of course we cannot suppress criticism of Wikipedia - if someone wants to create an attack site, or criticize us in a blog, or in a newspaper article, or on radio or TV, how could we possibly stop them? This vague and deceptively phrased sentence is a cover for two more pressing issues: first, should we actively respond to trolls (and yes, I mean trolls, not critics - the issue here is attack sites, not people who have reasonable criticisms of Wikipedia, which, by the way, would include most Wikipedians). I think the answer to this question should be no: don't feed the troll. Second, should we allow Wikipedia itself be used as a platform for publicizing attack sites? No, no, no, no, most definitely no. We have no obligation to, and it is counter productive in two ways - it will drive away good editors, and it will drive away readers who turn to Wikipedia for encyclopedia articles, not because they want to watch a bunch of middle-aged (or teenaged0 geeks havint a public hissy fit. Bottom line: this is an encyclopedia. We are meant to provide the planet ith access to the sum of human knowledge. To think that someone's attack of wikipedia editors, or trollish attack sites that just spread gossip about Wikipedia, has any relevance to our goal is to degrade and betray the whole project. Our policies make this clear: we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be perfectly comfortable with criticism of Wikipedia. Informed and well-reasoned critique is not a problem. That does not mean we need to link to web forums full of disgruntled banned users attempting to out pseudonymous editors, pursuing grudges and generally shouting bloody blue murder because they were (usually for excellent reasons) given the bum's rush. User:JB196 posts Wikipedia Review as Jonny Cache. His criticisms of Wikipedia have no evident authority, very little basis in fact, and are fundamentally based on the fact that he was such a monumental pain in the arse when his vanity spamming was rebuffed that one or two accounts out of over four hundred known and suspected sockpuppets are not, according to him, actually him. Sorry, but that is not a criticism of Wikipedia, it's a criticism of his obsessive vanity spamming and disruption, and we don't need his critique. We can get all the critique we need from places with an editorial policy and a fact-checking process; Britannica is a source of critique, and several respected newspapers also run pieces critiquing Wikipedia. Web forums and wikis are almost invariably rejected as sources for any article, due to fluidity of content, vulnerability to thread drift, lack of editorial policy and fact checking, and generally also because there is no validation that the editor is who they say they are.

Recently Rootology set up a site, WikiAbuse, with the intention of providing fact-checked, peer-reviewed critique. I supported this, it was a reasonable idea motivated by an apparently sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. It lasted about a month, I think. It was hijacked by the same grudge-bearers as populate the other attack sites, pushing the same malicious distortions and often outright lies. "Editor X is sexist because he argued against the inclusion of women in the list of major opera composers", for example; the list contains no women because there are no major women composers of opera (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Sites run or populated by banned grudge-bearers do not help us become a better encyclopaedia, they simply hamper any attempt to draw a line under past disputes by constantly re-presenting the "losing" side as if it were The Truth ™. This is the fundamental flaw with most attack sites, that is, those sites which carry significant volumes of personalised criticism of individual Wikipedians. Any attempt to engage in reasoned debate is very often derailed by the input of people who were booted from Wikipedia for excellent reasons, and who have it in for us as a result. People like Bagley. We've heard what he has to say, we've debated it, it's baseless - a tissue of lies from beginning to end - and one editor in particular finds any mention of it extremely hurtful. Why would we want to hear what Bagley has to say about Wikipedia? We know his view: his view is that he should be allowed to use Wikipedia to pursue his employer's Holy Crusade against naked short selling, and failure to support this Holy Crusade makes us part of the evil conspiracy to do down his fine company, whose poor share performance is entirely the result of cynical abuse by greedy conspirators, and nothing to do with their consistent failure to turn an operating profit.

Not linking to sites like Wikipedia Review in main space is not suppressing criticism, it's applying our sourcing guidelines. Discussing Wikipedia Review in project space is something that must be done with extreme caution; it's never going to be a reliable source (the main reason for discussing a link) and it is full of pretty vile diatribes by justly-banned users; we stop banned users from abusing their talk pages to attack those who banned them, and for the same reason we should be extremely wary of linking to any external platform where they do the same. Occasionally such links will be appropriate in the context of dispute resolution, so no absolute ban is practicable, but the judicious application of Clue, and not being a dick, argues very strongly indeed against linking to any site which ha substantial attack and outing content, because it is seen as a form of harassment by those attacked. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and Wikipedians

6) WP:BLP dictates that we must treat the subjects of our articles with compassion and understanding, taking special care to respect their privacy, even when, in some senses, they have become public figures. This policy applies equally to our editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Much as I do not think NPA applies to good faith edits, both in the article namespace and elsewhere, it is important not to let rejection of BADSITES into some perverse drive to link to any website in which our dirty laundry appears in the name of the greater good. Although links to or acknowledgments of sites that attack Wikipedians in vile ways may at times be necessary, they still require care and consideration of the ramifications they have on people's lives. Phil Sandifer 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed, although deliberate linking to harassment for no good reason is more a strawman argument given for keeping the policy than something that people actually do. -Amarkov moo! 03:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, it's also plainly covered by accepted policies against harassment and personal attacks, no matter what happens with this case. It's whether we should link to those sites for otherwise valid reasons (e.g. as sources for or examples of a valid article) that's in dispute. ShaleZero 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Articles referring to our editors have the same policies as our articles about anyone else. No more, no less. --Alecmconroy 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editing

7) Wikipedia editors have a right to edit without revealing their real life identities if they choose. Attempts by other editors to post information that violates this right is to be discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 04:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wikipedia editors have a right to edit pseudonymously or using an IP address, but not anonymously. Risker 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted.--MONGO 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The title of this still says "anonymous" and there is no such right granted in the Meta privacy policy. Risker 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. I do not wish to reveal my real life identity on Wikipedia and I don't have to. If someone who knew me in real life would create an account here and say "MELSARAN IS ACTUALLY JOHN DOE AND LIVES ON BROAD STREET 121!!!", then I think he would be blocked. The fact that it is not explicitly stated in the privacy policy doesn't mean that this is isn't a right. As a sidenote, the arbcom previously passed a similar principle[1]. Melsaran (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support Risker's point is mistaken semantics - the word "anonymous" is in effect a pseudonym, and the difference is inconsequential. We need to be able to identify Wikipedian editors when it comes to blocks, bans, and sock-puppets and we have a range of ways of doing this. But beyond this I think anonymity is a plus. Wikipedia is premised on the idea that all people have something to contribute, and one's identity (let alone credentials) is never the basis for judging a good or bad edit; it is the edit itself. I wouldn't care if Daniel Brandt or Judd Baggley were editing articles as long as they complied fully with all of our policies. And the problem is, they (or at least baggly, to my knoweldge have actually violated our policies. But that is the issue: compliance with or violation of our policies, not the identity per se. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an important principle. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aiding and abetting

8) Wikipedia editors should not aid and abet the revelation of real life identities of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs some rewording to avoid abuse by Wikilawyers, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong support - in effect is a personal attack (equivalent to my going up to someone in the street and stripping them of their clothes against their will - an assault and violation), and defeats the point of NPOV which is to promote a community of diverse even opposing editors who can work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

9) Editors who remove links to websites on Wikipedia that have personally identifying information about any Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous, should be considered to be acting in good faith. 9.1) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when those links reside in article namespace and are relevant to the subject. It's a bit egocentric to leave links to hate-promoting sites or neonazi sites (see e.g. Stormfront (website)) in place, and to remove links to websites that happen to target Wikipedia editors (in article namespace, when they are relevant to the subject). Melsaran (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is fine as a general rule-- by default everybody should be considered to be acting in good faith. But I think this principle would be intepreted as "people who remove links MUST be considered to be acting in good faith, no matter what." That's a big step from just WP:AGF. To see why this sentence is much more than just AGF, consider the converse: "Editors who ADD such links should be considered to be acting in good faith.". That's clearly not true. There can be good faith reasons and bad faith reasons to add OR remove a link-- context is critical. You can't just specify an action and say it should always be consided good faith or bad faith. --Alecmconroy 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that last sentence. Proposed 9.1 (adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Assume good faith). Melsaran (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Melsaran is wrong to make "relevance" the only criteria for inclusion - it must be relevance and notability, and it is on notability that most of the attack sites in question fall far short of the mark. B the way, I do agree that our criteria should apply to all hate sites: mention them only if the are relevant and notable. Wikipedia should not go out of its way to publicize fringe views. If a fringe-view is innoccuous, we can mention it in passing - but if it is both fringe and hateful, it just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative sources

10) If a website routinely engages in presenting information revealing the real life identities of our contributors, alternative sources should be used as much as possible to satisfy requirements for reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, inasmuch as any source that would be considered objectionable by a reasonable person (Hate sites, explicit pornography, etc.) should be avoided when not directly relevant to the material in question. ShaleZero 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above; we don't censor relevant encyclopaedic content because it happens to target our contributors. There are many sites out there that are offensive to non-Wikipedians and we link to them. See also User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy. Melsaran (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where the same content can be gained from a source that is more objective then of course we should use that other source. And actually we have probably lost sight of something here: in trying to cite antisocialmedia, for example, we would be citing a primary source, when actually we should probably look for a secondary source instead. ASM is not a reliable source for anything, and in documenting the controversy we should be looking to what outside commentators say. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on principle. We should use the BEST sources-- the most reliable, the most notable, to create the best article possible. In practice, I doubt we're going to find any cases where an outing site really is the best source-- but it's important that we choose our sources based on the "Best Source" standard, not the "Least Objectionable" standard. --Alecmconroy 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks defined

11) A personal attack is a deliberately written pejorative comment made by one editor about another editor that may include the use of links to material hosted on Wikipedia or other websites. Links to the identical material in other contexts are not inherently personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Intended to clarify that it isn't a personal attack if it isn't personal. Can assist in addressing situations such as the mass deletion of links to Making Light, or the rampages throughout Wikipedia to delete all links to a site because of one perceived personal attack on that site. Risker 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a personal attack if it's accurate or at least sourced? Say Wikipedia linked to a blogsite that credibly documented the misdeeds of John Doe, and he didn't like it. If John Doe then joined Wikipedia, would the link need to be removed? Does Wikipedia exist for those who edit it or those who read it? The standard should be accuracy, and if this unnamable blogsite is not accurate, then why even consider linking to it? If it is accurate then why should its subjects be granted special status just because they took the 30 seconds to enter a username and password? Before I joined, and even since, I edited with my IP address only, but still considered myself a "Wikipedian". Was I wrong? If not, then the whole world are Wikipedians in theory, if truly anybody can edit. And that complicates things, doesn't it? deface a facade! 10:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly phrased Obviously, this is what a personal attack is. But it is not the only form of personal attack, i.e. it is an incomplete description of a personal attack. Any American who was ever between 8 and 18 years old knows very well that the most affective personal attack is "Mark told me you have a tiny dick" or "Joe said you are a slut and went down on ten guys last year." (This is such common knowledge in the US that if anyone disputes this i have to believe they are acting in bad faith. In the meantime I suggest they rent the movie Mean Girls. And yet some people here at Wikipedia seem to think that if you use this phrasing here (X claims that Y ...) they are not engaging in a personal attack. This is disingenuous if not simply bad faith. It is also a perversion of NPOV. Most editors and the personal details about editors do not come close to the standards of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and even when they do we need to be very careful about how they are treated in Wikipedia articles - if they are notable enough to be mentioned in an article, then BLP applies. In any event, obviously any edit including to the content of an article that amounts to "Well that's what I heard" or "Well that's what he said" is obviously - OBVIOUSLY - a personal attack. Any kid at a Junior High playground knows this ... people writing an encyclopedia should at least be as knowledgable as the average 12 year old. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic Integrity

12) Wikipedia should report matters regarding itself or its editors with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from the Associated Press's "Statement of Ethical Principles". See talk. --Alecmconroy 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think that the AP's ethical principals are a valuable resource as we consider our own ethics. I add however that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and WP:NOT makes this an explicit principal. What we consider balanced and unbiased may be different from what journalists consider balanced and unbiased. And as an encyclopedia we may confront ethical issues journalists do not. So I have no problem with this as long as it does not in any way violate or do an end-run around WP:NOT. Our job is to help give everyone access to make the sum of human knowledge, and this entails a standard of notability that is much higher than newspapers (which report on news that people may forget within days) and this may require different ethical principles. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think this particular line in the AP is good, but other parts are less applicable. See my verbose response in talk momentarily. --Alecmconroy 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be prejudged

13) In keeping with the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the working definition of notability, the site's policies cannot presume in advance what subjects will or will not become notable in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. ShaleZero 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant? Melsaran (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to arguments that we can categorically ban links to "attack sites"; that implies (and sometimes outright claims) that no site falling into that category will ever be notable enough to deserve an article. Viz. [[2]] ShaleZero 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant. This is not about links that people assert might one day in the future be relevant, it's about the here-and-now. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Irrelevant. Anyone can edit a wikipedia article at any time so wikipedia articles are always works in progress so they are never finished. that means that all we care about is what is notable at the moment. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored

14) Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content and do not violate any of our existing policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In essence-- "If content makes for a better encyclopedia article, it can be included." The opposite of this is Proposed Principle #4, which I paraphrase as "Objectionable content will be scrubbed unless deleting it would absolutely violate NPOV." --Alecmconroy 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This refers to the inclusion of images and text that people find objectionable for religious or other reasons, such as the Mohammed cartoons or explicit images in sexual topics. It absolutely does not give us an excuse to link to external harassment or even external POV forks. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The caveat at the end of it stops that being an issue. Viridae ^Talk 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "do not violate any of our existing policies" is an extremely important clause-- relevancy is just the first of many many criteria content must meet in order to be included. --Alecmconroy

Comment A total red-herring. Wikipedia is not censored except to comply with our policies? So what exactly do we mean by censored? Irrelevant, since what is at issue here is what are our policies, what is the best way to apply them. Introducing the word "censorship" is just inflammatory rhetoric that would distract people from the real task at hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

15) Wikipedia is not a newspaper: News reports, and tabloid newspaper articles Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: The standard of notability fo rinclusion in an encyclopedia is higher than the standard for inclusion in a newspaper. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

16) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) In April 2007, the proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites was created. It was quickly rejected by the community. Later, similar content was added to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, in a section titled external links. This section has been the subject of extensive debate, and various disputes have arised about the applicability of the policy in articles when linking to off-wiki sites that criticise Wikipedians.

1.1) In April 2007, the proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites was created. It was quickly rejected by the community. Later, similar content was added to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, in a section titled external links. This section has been the subject of extensive debate, and various disputes have arised about the applicability of the policy in articles when linking to off-wiki sites that criticise Wikipedians (such as Making Light, Michaelmoore.com, and antisocialmedia.net).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think some of the specific debates - Making Light, Michaelmoore.com, and antisocialmedia.net - need to also be mentioned as loci of the dispute. Phil Sandifer 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute involves antisocialmedia.net and only that Overstock.com corporate smear site. I've never heard of Making Light, and I posted once in favor of including the Michaelmoore.com link. The latter was and is not an "attack site" in any way, shape or form and did not harass a Wikipedia editor as such. It was critical of a lawyer who acknowledged editing on Wikipedia. In any event, I believe that is the subject of a separate arbitration and it has no relationship to this one.--Mantanmoreland 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, could be improved. Melsaran (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This dispute", as stated in the opening of the case, may have been directly inspired by the Overstock / Antisocialmedia issue, but it's definitely not limited to it; the clear intent and effect is to examine the entire issue of the "BADSITES" pseudo-policy and its relatives, and it should not be narrowed in scope from this. *Dan T.* 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 1.1 per Phil's suggestion. Melsaran (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

2) The website known as Encyclopedia Dramatica has numerous articles that supposedly identify the real life identities of some Wikipedia editors. Many of these same articles have misleading and/or slanderous accusations that have little or no basis in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so far as I've seen, almost nobody actually wants to link to Encyclopedia Dramatica. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One fish, two fish, red herring, blue fish. ED is a horridly unreliable source, so it would only be accepted as a link in an article about itself. Since the article is most likely not coming back, as shown by multiple deletion reviews, this is really a non-issue. Let's focus on the sites that are actually being revert-warred over and not insert this largely irrelevant finding into the fray. Picaroon (t) 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree...I think it is important to reaffirm that this website is still just as despicable as it was a year in a half ago.--MONGO 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica is irrelevant here. Melsaran (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant in that it was the canonical example in the original arbitration. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not relevant to this arbitration. Melsaran (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review

3) The website Wikipedia Review is primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors. Many of those who post to Wikipedia Review are editors that have been banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Actually we could say justlyor properly banned. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring over external links

4) Websites labeled as "attack sites" by some editors, a label looked on as irrelevant/not grounds for removal in the context of articles by other editors, have been the subject of multiple revert wars. Examples: at Judd Bagley, Overstock.com, at Michael Moore.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm sure there have been more; what was KamrynMatika blocked for again? Wasn't one of these. Picaroon (t) 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A WR link in the Essjay controversy article. Zurishaddai 05:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

"No personal attacks" in articles

Harassment

Personal attacks are by definition bad faith

Personal attacks on editors may be excluded from articles

Wikipedia does not suppress criticism of itself

BLP and Wikipedians

Anonymous editing

Aiding and abetting

Assume Good Faith

Alternative sources

Personal attacks defined

Journalistic Integrity

Notability cannot be prejudged

Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Wikipedia Review

Revert warring over external links

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion