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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I just read this wonderful article on wikipedia today, I recommed it to anyone. New Yorker: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? Why do I bring this up?:

"Martin Wattenberg and Fernanda B. Viégas, two researchers at I.B.M. who have studied (wikipedia) said: "Wattenberg and Viégas have also identified a “first-mover advantage”: the initial contributor to an article often sets the tone"

User:Fred Bauder has a “first-mover advantage” and is setting the tone of this arbitration Workshop#Proposed_final_decision.

I would plead with others editors to take the initative and be independent in your assessment of this arbitration.

At first glance, from someone who has never looked at this case, this appears to be a case of admins protecting their own, which is never really acknowleged, but happens frequently on wikipedia. Can I say this last sentence without being booted? If this is against some policy I am unaware of, please let me know and I will delete it immediatly. I am not accusing User:Fred Bauder of anything, when I say this, I mean the arbitration in general. I am just expressing my opinion.

I would also like to mention that user:rootology has been booted for 24 hours, (I agree with the boot--the reason for the boot is not at issue here) and is unable to defend himself as others "set...the tone." Travb (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harrassment

1) It is unacceptable to harass another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Comment by others:

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:

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment of MONGO

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attack article

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing on ED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rootology

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was involved in the Bantown deletion debate and strongly argued against deletion of Encyclopædia Dramatica, see [1]. In addition to complaining about MONGO's efforts to defeat harassment [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], 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 Dramatica [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Rootology admitted that the PrivateEditor account is also his, so I never asked for a checkuser verification.[8]--MONGO 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weevlos

6) Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Links to ED

7) MONGO takes the position that links to ED may be removed on sight [10].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Karwynn

8) Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Encyclopædia Dramatica

9) In addition to featuring an attack article on a Wikipedia administrator on its Main Page, Encyclopædia Dramatica 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MONGO

10) MONGO was criticized for removing the link to ED while it was protected and made this response [11]. 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion review

11} Deletion review

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Further updates have been added concerning this matter to my evidence section.[12]--MONGO 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Badlydrawnjeff

12) Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Yes, I see that the "Webmaster" on the ED website posted a comment he made here on his userpage there.[13]--MONGO 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badlydrawnjeff states he is "gone" and they can feel free to desyop him.[14], and that was his last edit there under that username.[15]--MONGO 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

Yes, broadly stroked ideological reasons[16], "stop the Neocon POV pushing hockey goons".--MONGO 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Encyclopædia Dramatica

13) Encyclopædia Dramatica (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)[reply]

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[17] of their content[18]. rootology (T) 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion of ED

16) As the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fuckface

17) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 · filter log · 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site

18) Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Links to ED

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Editors of ED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

PrivateEditor

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)[reply]

Rootology admitted that the PrivateEditor account is also his, so I never asked for a checkuser verification.[19]--MONGO 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

1) Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Comment by others:

So will I be booted now for this: User:Travb#encyclopediadramatica it has nothing to do with Mondo's encyclopediadramatica 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)[reply]

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

Template

Harrassment

Combatting harassment

Links to attack site

Solidarity

Re-publication of deleted articles

Guilt by association

Requests for deletion

Support of harassment

Karma

Right to edit Wikipedia pseudononymously

Most Wikipedians edit pseudonymously

Outing sites as attack sites

Personal morals and ideals

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Harassment of MONGO

Attack article

Editing on ED

Method of harrassment

Rootology

Weevlos

Links to ED

Karwynn

Encyclopædia Dramatica

MONGO

Deletion review

Badlydrawnjeff

Encyclopædia Dramatica

Provocative material on ED

Involvement on ED by Wikipedia users

Deletion of ED

Fuckface

Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Links to ED

MONGO

Editors of ED

PrivateEditor

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Enforcement by block

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion