Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

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

For this case, there are 9 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

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

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Freedom of Expression[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, and we all would benefit from more sites that provide thoughtful criticism. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No personal attacks[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jpgordon 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Linking to external sites[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, doing this to harass is unacceptable. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Personal attacks and harassment hosted off-site cannot be linked to if stating it on-site is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is the wrong way around. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Per proposed principle "Editors have no special protection", I've offered alternative language — changing the word "user" to "person" — in 4.2 below.[reply]
Abstain:

Linking to external sites as harassment[edit]

4.1) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another user so as to harass them is unacceptable.

Support:
  1. It needs be highlighted that the problem is with the intent, not the action. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Per proposed principle "Editors have no special protection", I've offered alternative language — changing the word "user" to "person" — in 4.2 below.[reply]
Abstain:

Linking to external sites as harassment[edit]

4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely, this is better. James F. (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have no problem with this language but I still contend that our WP:NPA might provide a lower threshold for removing external links involving our editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dealing with harassment[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipedians should support fellow Wikipedians by removing personal attacks, links to attack sites, and in extreme cases all reference to attack sites. In some situations, protecting a harassed user takes precedent over transparency. In extreme cases, removal of an article or content may be temporarily necessary to stop harassment. These cases are the exception not the rule. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Note well the 'In extreme cases'. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5 (An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy). Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I disagree that it is appropriate for us to give free licence to the direct victims. Much better for the community at large to express this will. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Better for someone else to do it, yes. But I do not think that makes it "wrong" for an user to revert attacks. Usually the person making the attack will place it where the victim is sure to see it such as their talk page. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recipe for wars. Get others to carry out policy, would be my advice. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... but no purging of sites[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice Fred Bauder 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Does not go far enough in extreme cases. Too easy to game the system. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again per my reasoning 7. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

... but not of oneself[edit]

7.2) Users have the right to expect harassment of themselves to be combated. Users who are not directly involved are encouraged to achieve this through the removal of personal attacks, removal of links to external harassment, and, in extreme cases, removal of references to attack sites; these activities are not subject to revert limitations.

Support:
  1. We have had a long-term commitment to a strong deprecation on self-involvement in potentially controversial actions. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Better for others to do it, yes. I support this as long as we do not say it is "wrong" for the victim to defend themselves. Removing an attack is likely to be some users first reaction to an attack. Many folks will not have read the Wikipedia rule book on this matter before they are attacked. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third choice Fred Bauder 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5 (An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy); and this is too broad regardless. We must consider the possibility of a user so odious that no member of the community is willing to defend them. Kirill 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

External links[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Which, by definition, precludes linking to an attack site Fred Bauder 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scope of Arbitration[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, our intent is to deal with this extreme case of harassment not garden variety criticism that might be stated bluntly and unkindly. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although this is something of a futile gesture. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While we naturally attempt to make an interpretation of policy in a consistent way, an individual decision is in response to the situation addressed. It may be specific to that situation or only to situations of sufficient gravity, and we may not fully explain in the decision the criteria for that specificity. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I strongly disagree - the principles expressed are supposed to apply throughout the project. Raul654 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "decision", not "principles". I would imagine that the Committee agrees with you on your concern, though. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, it does say decision, which includes principles. Thus, it is wrong. I would reconsider it if it were more narrowly worded, but as is, I cannot support it. Raul654 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with James. In writing principles, usually we use established Wikipedia policy or (rarely) other customs and practices to support our decisions. So as a general rule, the principles will more often apply through out the project. But a principle we pass in one case might not be the guiding force in another situation. In this particular case, differences of opinion about how to interpret our principles in another case is a key factor. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Malicious sites[edit]

15) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a substantial amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This makes it more clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. So long as we're talking about linking, yes. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't want the term "attack site" to gain any standing. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Per Charles, and other reservations.[reply]
  3. Agree with the principle. The term "attack site" is broken now, and rather than incorporate it by reference, I'd rather see other wording to accomplish this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Malicious sites[edit]

15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.

Support:
  1. Kirill 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. James F. (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Prefer 15.2, which attempts to ground this principle in policy, and expands to include all persons.[reply]
Abstain:

Malicious sites[edit]

15.2) Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, Wikipedia should generally not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing specific living individuals, including, but not limited to, our editors. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although the "threatening them with physical violence" part may prove problematic when applied to, say, controversial political leaders. Kirill 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 17:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Criticism[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Outwith the scope of this, I think. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This gives free reign to banned users with an ax to grind...an invitation to come back as socks. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Too vague. We have a channel for content complaints (OTRS); but nothing so formal for complaints about admins, perhaps a larger cause of external criticism (by bulk, not by seriousness). Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big shots[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too vague without a definition of "personnel". Kirill 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Still too vague; as the term is currently understood, every bored kid who inserts random profanities into an article qualifies as a "user". Kirill 17:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opens the door to trolls demanding equal consideration. Raul654 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Don't panic[edit]

20) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. And where momentarily unable to self-generate said realism, to follow that offered up by others. But second choice to 22.1, a merger of these two. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Over-reaction[edit]

22) It is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory. It is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I.e., "get a thick skin". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite it. One can be hurt by the hurtful, but also retain the good sense not to hit back on the same level. Charles Matthews 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Don't over-react[edit]

22.1) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way. For example, it is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.

Support:
  1. First choice (note: over 20 and 22). James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Written this way it better. Be clear that we are talking about criticism not harassment here. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Satire[edit]

23) Satirical treatment of Wikipedia, its users, errors and policies is to be expected.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Anonymity and conflict of interest[edit]

24) Allowing anonymous editing and forbidding conflict of interest is an obvious contradiction which necessarily is imperfectly resolved.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Investigation of prohibited links[edit]

32) If an editor believes that the content of a prohibited link reveals a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, they may forward the link to the Committee for investigation.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is the way to deal with their concerns. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors have no special protection[edit]

36) Wikipedia's editors enjoy no special protection from objectionable links or other objectionable article content, beyond that which is available (including WP:BLP) to all persons, regardless of editorial status.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I've added "(including WP:BLP)" per talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As written sends the wrong message and is not accurate. WP:NPA applies to our editors and is the basis for removing external links that attack our editors. This policy addresses editor conduct that prevent collaborative editing. For example, an article created by one editor primarily to harass another should be promptly removed as this is an user conduct issue. WP:BLP addresses article content. Per this policy it might or might not be appropriate to add links in articles that record personal attacks in outside sources. Editorial judgment is needed to decide. We have several established protocols (WP:AFD, WP:RFC, among others) that we use to make this judgment. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that an article created to harass an editor should be treated differently than one to harass a non-editor? Paul August ☎ 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because our policies regulating user conduct is stricter than many real world rules or laws. Our policy on WP:NPA is to promote collaborative editing so we can have well written articles. If one editor researches another editor and adds content to articles with the intent to intimidate or retaliate and gain the upper hand by harassing the editor off the site, it should be promptly removed because it breaches our NPA policy. This includes external links.
    Clearly, other standards exist for judging article content that is added by editors not involved in a conflict with each other. It often happens that an outside conflict spills over into Wikipedia between parties that naturally are adversaries. We can expect some animosity between these parties. It is in our best interest to tolerate a small amount of provocation while these new users learn our policies. If they can't then we show them the door. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriateness of article content is solely a function of the content itself. It does not depend in any way on the author's "intent". Paul August ☎ 19:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We make reasonable efforts to protect our users from harassment. Fred Bauder 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but not in such a way as to effect article content, which by NPOV, should treat editors and non-editors in the same way. For example it would be clearly inappropriate to have different notability standards for editors versus non-editors wouldn't it? Why should we treat harassment against non-editors any differently than editors? Why should any content decisions treat non-editors differently than editors? Special treatment for editors versus non-editors. with regard to article content pertaining to them, is a violation of NPOV. Paul August ☎ 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:

All living individuals deserve protection[edit]

36.1) All living individuals deserve equal protection against unreasonable and objectionable content, both in the article and in external links, as specified in WP:BLP.

Support:
  1. Perhaps this is a better wording of the same possible intent? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Biographies of living subjects is a policy which applies to biographies of living subjects, not to personal information about Wikipedia users. Fred Bauder 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True but our editors need more protection than the BLP gives. Often discussing seemingly correct personal information about a Wikipedia editors is not appropriate; while doing the same in the context of a biography of a living person is right on. We need to send the clear message that we will not tolerate researching our editors and putting the content in an external site or a Wikipedia article in an attempt to intimidate or retaliate against a Wikipedia editor/admin. This needs to be looked at in the larger context of the campaign to harass an editor. What makes harassment effective is not a single isolated event but a long-term crusade that keeps picking at someone until they break from the negative attention. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Error[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a difference between harshly worded criticism and sites that engage in harassment. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fighting back[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Struggle[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

NPA[edit]

40) WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behavior have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Article content should be determined in a disinterested editorial manner; applying community policies or guidelines not intended for article content, or allowing one's own opinions of, or experiences with, the subject of an article, to be a consideration, is inappropriate.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC) I'm offering this slight rewording of James' and others attempt at "clarification" from the original "Requests for arbitration" page (since moved to the workshop talk page), since I think this is a relevant issue and needs to be considered and addressed.[reply]
  2. Quite difficult to parse, but OK Fred Bauder 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think, to answer Flo's point, our content policies are quite adequate to deal with article creation on the scale she points to. I have no problem at all with the term "attack piece", and it is well established that articles of that sort can be speedied. Charles Matthews 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Does not follow our past custom and practices. Ignores the fact that articles are indeed started by banned users and their sock/meatpuppets, or other troublemakers to harass, attack, bully, annoy, or make a point. It has been our custom and practice to promptly remove them on sight. Are you suggesting that we drop this practice? If so, I think it is a terrible idea because it rewards banned users and their socks/meatpuppets. Also it can be cruel to the victim to have the first google hit to be a Wikipedia article started by or heavily influenced by someone that is harassing them. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

NPOV[edit]

41) WP:NPOV is listed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a non-negotiable issue at m:Foundation issues. No policy may supersede it. WP:NPOV states that all significant views must be represented fairly and without bias, and requires balanced coverage of each article's subject.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Synthesized from the workshop page.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not applicable to harassment of users. Fred Bauder 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

42) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

AntiSocialMedia.net[edit]

1) AntiSocialMedia.net, a creation of the banned user WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is part of an extended campaign of harassment directed at several users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Which site is this again? Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Attack sites[edit]

2) There are several external sites which regularly engage in or assist with the harassment of Wikipedia editors, in large part through concerted efforts to "out" the identities of those editors who chose to remain anonymous, or by presenting editors in a false light by exaggerating errors, raising poorly supported allegations, or advancing false conclusions about editors' participation at Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are a few such sites, some much worse than others. Fred Bauder 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Additionally, the sites attempt to harass Wikipedia editors by outing them and/or by presenting editors in a poor light by exaggerating errors, making false statement, or drawing false conclusions about an editors participation at Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are numerous sites that might publish a story critical of enWP, or individuals who edit here, and might happen to do so in a way that either abets harassment, or smears them. This isn't really a property inherent in the site itself, in all such cases. Charles Matthews 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Suppression of references to external sites[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sometimes inappropriately Fred Bauder 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

BADSITES[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, not surprisingly, the matter is contentious on the new page as it was on the old. Charles Matthews 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. An attempt has been made to incorporate. I don't think we should imply that this attempt is successful (the appearance of some text in the page about the policy does not make said text policy). James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

BADSITES[edit]

5.1) Wikipedia:Attack sites is a proposed policy which, in that form, has been rejected by the community. Attempts have been made to incorporate substantial parts of this rejected policy into Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks; such incorporation remains disputed.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC) An attempt to satisfy James' objection.[reply]
  2. Kirill 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 13:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Inappropriate application of policy[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We are clarifying existing policy that it is not incorrect to remove personal attacks and harassment. Links to external sites that harass our editors should not be made and can be removed. This does not apply to links to external sites that discuss Wikipedia in a critical manner. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. as per FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Big stretch. Charles Matthews 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We do not need such exemplars for this case. Well, OK, we don't need this case, either. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not really relevant. Kirill 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Sorting out[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True, because open forums attract a mix of editors. But one should distinguish the posters in a forum who do intend (as individuals) to make damaging postings, from the sites that have an editorial line amounting to open season on Wikipedians. Though the distinction is tenuous in some cases, from our point of view it should make a real difference to the possibility of diplomacy and negotiation with sites. Charles Matthews 16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Michael Moore[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd like to note this, showing that diplomacy is a real option. Charles Matthews 16:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. An exemplum is unecessary. (Slight fix for context.) James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Cyde[edit]

13) In response to allegations which originated from the banned user Wordbomb, who has been engaged in a lengthy campaign of harassment of SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a dialog was initiated by Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with respect to the allegations [1] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive290#SlimVirgin.27s_sockpuppet.28s.29. In addition, the alternate account, long disused, was blocked as a "Sockpuppet of administrator SlimVirgin, used abusively" by Cyde. Cyde had been engaged in a long-running dispute with SlimVirgin [2] [3]. Funnyguy555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a, now deleted, notice on its user pages that it was a sockpuppet of SlimVirgin. Investigation showed the complaints to be stale and of little substance.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Don Murphy[edit]

14) Don Murphy, a prominent American film producer, aggrieved at the presence of an article on him, which he considers an invasion of privacy, created a forum entitled "Shitapedia Frolics", reachable by links "bad guys" and "Wikipedia Villians" from the main page of his website. Outing information on users is encouraged. There has been edit warring regarding the appropriateness of a link to his website, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Don_Murphy. Mr. Murphy may have created accounts on Wikipedia and has posted the suggestion that subverting an administrative account would be "fun" [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. An exemplum is unecessary. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:


Template[edit]

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Salt the earth[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Remove first and discuss privately to see if the content can be added in a manner that does not harass and intimidate Wikipedia editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5 (An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy). Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I object to individuals doing controversial actions regarding themselves. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

AntiSocialMedia.net[edit]

1.1) Links to AntiSocialMedia.net may be removed by any uninvolved user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to include links or references to attack sites on Wikipedia. It takes the focus off of writing good encyclopedia articles and instead promotes drama by encouraging editors to discuss users instead of content. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5 (An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy). Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Umm. This contradicts the above suggestion that people can post about such information on, say, noticeboards without issue as long as it is done in good faith. Either that, or this is poorly-worded. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ban[edit]

2.2) A user who repeatedly creates links to AntiSocialMedia.net may be banned, by an uninvolved administrator, after warning. As there was some doubt about the applicability Wikipedia:No personal attacks to linking to an attack site, this remedy applies only to future incidents. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Policy matter remanded to the community[edit]

3) The community is instructed to develop a workable policy regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked or referenced.

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. While community attempts to formulate policy are always welcome, the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Additionally, while we may encourage attempts to refine policy, we are in no position to instruct the community to do so. Fred Bauder 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Fred, on both counts. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Fred. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Fred. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Policy matter remanded to the community[edit]

3.1) The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with the Foundation issues regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice (cited page does not address personal attacks or civility) Fred Bauder 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Any policy concerning restrictions on external linking to critical material must take into account the diplomatic imperative, to co-exist and maintain a sensible relationship with other sites. The whole point of branding a site an "attack site" seems to be to negate any possibility of that. We may well wish to ignore some sites so branded; but the fact is that encouraging name-calling internally is gesture politics, and the edge cases are exactly where diplomacy can have results. Charles Matthews 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Strongly agree with Charles.[reply]
Abstain:

Policy matter remanded to the community[edit]

3.2) The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's key policies regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As before. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Strongly agree with Charles.[reply]
Abstain:

The community is encouraged to develop a policy[edit]

3.3) The community is encouraged to discuss and adopt a policy addressing the issue of disputed links to external sites, such as the ones discussed in this case.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Per Newyorkbrad's suggestion on the talk page.[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 16:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors encouraged[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes mutual support is a foundational principle of collaborative projects Fred Bauder 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Note: I've changed "attack" to "malicious"[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scope of this decision[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5 (An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy). Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Scope of this decision[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice Fred Bauder 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 2nd. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In extreme situations, references to extreme attack sites as well as links should be removed. Allowing reference to these sites has the potential to expand the harassment to uninvolved editors who would not have known of it any other way. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Other sites[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Only as a last resort. I hope the community will come together and be more supportive of editors being harassed and ArbCom will not need to rule on every case. We need to encourage editors to focus on writing the encyclopedia and not engage in prolonged discussions about other editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Flo. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

A wait[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The problem with this remedy is that it has the potential to expand the number of editors exposed to harassment. If a person or site is known by a few editors to engage in extreme harassment then I see no reason for it to be discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Doing so will likely increase the number of editors involved in situation and open them to harassment. Linking to the site also gives the site the attention that they are seeking for their campaign of harassment. Please be clear that I'm not talking about well known web sites that are now focusing their attention on Wikipeia editors. These sites are already well known. I'm talking about sites that most users would not know about if they are not directed there by a notice on AN/I. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Advice to aggrieved parties[edit]

7) If you are dissatisfied with the article on you or your project, or regarding how you are treated on Wikipedia, please communicate on our talk pages, use our dispute resolution procedures, or contact the Wikimedia Foundation itself.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Or contact the Foundation offices, if necessary. Some issues are better brought up that way. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Added Matthew's suggestion. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

When in Rome[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Doesn't need stating if one includes only on-site interactions, and unworkable if one does not. Kirill 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is unnecessary, and "recommended" is an absurdly- and inappropriately-mild term. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Cyde[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Sends the wrong message. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I disagree with some of Cyde's conduct but do not support desysopping. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Morven. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I oppose this, as not proportionate, but am unhappy with the conduct shown, so I'm supporting the suspension. Charles Matthews 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Cyde[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Second choice Fred Bauder 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. As above. Kirill 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Morven as stated above. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is fine. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Principle #5 (An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy). Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1.1) After warning, users who link to AntiSocialMedia.net may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Arbitration proceedings exempted[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Opens the door to systemic trolling in the case of the worst sites. Fred Bauder 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Better to state that such evidence may be presented in the form of private email, if it is necessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Matthew. James F. (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Morven. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

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

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

Later comment: even if asked, the AC cannot lay down new policy here. WP:HARASS and our customs go a long way to limit any postings of external links that are designed to damage the reputations of editors. The community must hammer out fresh policy if it wants one. BADSITES rightly failed, because WP cannot be solipsistic about its place in the Web world, and because the cases involving ED do not create precedent. I'd like to put it this way: clearly enWP has the power to remove all external links to, and even mentions of, some other site. To the extent that Wikipedia is media and of increasing prominence, this 'power' is something real. Now, looking ahead, such power must not be used simply to bully critics. We must become diplomats. Charles Matthews 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Paul August ☎ 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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

Based on my reading of the decision, including which proposals appear to have been intended to supersede earlier ones, I understand that the following are passed:

  • Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 7.2, 11, 14, 15.1, 22.1, 23, 24, 32, 37, 38, and 39;
  • Proposed findings 1, 4, 6, and 8;
  • Proposed remedies 3.2 (or 3.3?), 4, 5.1, and 7;
  • No enforcement provisions. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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

  1. Move to close. Enough has been said. Charles Matthews 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unsatisfactory, but all we are going to accomplish, Close Fred Bauder 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Kirill 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Prolonging this is not going to get us any more, I feel. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. And, well, I refer to my opening remark. James F. (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision

Leave a Reply