Active/inactive Arbitrators

Active

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• SimonP

Away/inactive

• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality (Ben)
• Raul654
• UninvitedCompany

I'm surprised to find that, at this time, the workshop fails to even touch on Cyde's public spectacle. Only the evidence page accounts for his gross indiscretion and de facto provocational act. Throughout the "long-time community member" superlatives, Phil Sandifer fails to note the simple fact: had the question been posed semi / privately, a lot of needless anguish (and countless lost work hours, lest we forget) could have been spared. I am not going to formulate this into a remedy or finding of fact, but I truly hope that this incident will not simply be whitewashed by the Committee and that its members will rise above factionalism to deliver a just resolution. The breadth of this case notwithstanding, abusive acts that, not only link to but mirror the practices of attack sites need to be addressed. Not only in theory, but also in practice. Thx. El_C 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Fred Bauder 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Even if Cyde's decision to post to AN/I was in poor judgment, it was not in bad faith, and it was in no way actionable. You've got to be kidding me. Phil Sandifer 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde is not a party to the case and should be notified if any proposals involving him are being considered. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're not supposed to mess with this which is why I'm making a note that I fixed some numbering, edit to undo if need be is [1], that's all. Milto LOL pia 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did screw it up. Fred Bauder 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, what exactly do you mean with "the" attack site? Is there a specific site you meant, or does it apply to all "attack sites"? Melsaran (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning all references to a site without telling anybody which site it is... very Kafkaesque. *Dan T.* 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have "the attack site of the day." Come on, guys, what site can get you banned for merely linking to it? ED? WR? P-J? My user page (mostly attacks on myself)? Casey Abell 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think about it, I'm amazed that I haven't been banned already. My user page is a vicious attack site. Why, I attack a user, by his real name, for being a "clueless oldbie" who "obsessively keeps track of his own edit count" and "enjoys thinking about other people contributing to Wikipedia without wearing clothes." I also viciously slam this 10000+ edit user for making "stupid remarks" and "silly comments" and being "hardly even a respectable editor." I admit that this editor is "pretty naive" so maybe that's a mitigating factor, although I also sneer that the user "may have no personal affiliation with Earth other than Wikipedia itself."

Okay, I'll drop the humor. But I wish somebody would have some sense about this matter, including a sense of humor and a sense of proportion and a sense of elementary fairness. Threatening to ban people for linking to an unnamed site sounds like something from Stalin's playbook. (I'm trying to avoid a Godwin's law violation here, but it's not easy.) I can't believe that this proposal has even been made, much less gotten two votes in favor. Casey Abell 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem of this issue exemplified, that we have to ask ourselves "what site are we talking about?" This question was raised earlier by another user, and removed by the same user as potential troll bait. I disagree, but we're all on egg shells here. It strikes me as childish referring to things as the site, the attack site, and so on. Is this really about one site? I'm quite confused. daveh4h 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Lord Vol... er, I mean The One Who Must Not Be Named! *Dan T.* 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely FloNight is not suggesting a concentrated attempt at harassment by Cyde, Gmaxwell, SeraphimBlade, MessedRocker, and everybody else who expressed concern on the ANI thread about SlimVirgin. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we are not going to consider linking to sites that "present editors in a poor light" as harassment. I don't know how anyone could possibly claim that as anything but an obvious double standard, and the idea of banning anything that criticizes Wikipedia editors in a way we don't like is anathema to NPOV. And it's unworkable as a single standard, too; it would be devastating to the encyclopedia to extend that rule to all targets. You can't cover politics, wars, propaganda, hate groups or any kind of incident of conflict without referencing sources that present their targets in a poor light and misrepresent or exaggerate their actions to that end. ShaleZero 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why "negative information" is an unfortunately decided choice of words for defining an attack site. There needs to be something that distinguishes between websites that say "Miltopia is a bad editor" from "Miltopia is engaged in an abusive conspiracy" from "Miltopia is a faggot". Milto LOL pia 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I mean here: Cyde and co. linking to sites that say "SlimVirgin is abusive zomg" is not even in the same ballpark (I would hope) as Cyde linking to a site that says "SlimVirgin is a [expletive]". Milto LOL pia 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment. Criticism != harassment. ATren 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight talks about "sending the right/wrong message" a few times. Just what is the right message to send? That all of Wikipedia must submit to censorship any time somebody gets bothered by something pertaining to them being discussed anywhere on the Web? *Dan T.* 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps FloNight would like to propose her own remedies so that we unenlightened can see what the 'right message' is? 86.137.28.211 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder appears to be fundamentally misguided about what our fundamental policies are, as seen here:

Policy matter remanded to the community

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)

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)

While there are some fundamental foundation policies that are basic to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in general, and are non-negotiable -- see meta:Foundation issues -- WP:NPA is not one of them. It is a policy made by consensus of the community in the English Wikipedia (and similarly, the communities in other-language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects may have their own variants of it, possibly similar, possibly very different), and subject to being altered or abolished by community consensus as it evolves over time. So, the community can very well override it... even to the point of abolishing it completely... without it violating foundation policy. Not that I'm advocating anything nearly so extreme; I'm just seeking a more pro-freedom policy where external links posted without harrassing intention are concerned. There's nothing stopping community consensus from evolving such a position, and it is out of line for the ArbCom to insist that it has no right to do so. *Dan T.* 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred - do you really mean to suggest that the validity and good faith of a question or query about one's actions rests on whether it's eventually found to have been actionable? Phil Sandifer 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys need to make a distinction between attack sites and attack pages. Wikipedia Watch, while mainly being an attack site, does have some useful information that could come up in discussions on wiki, and those posting a link should not be afraid of OMG badsite! Example http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html . That page does not discuss any wikipedia editor but as this decision is stating, that link would put me in a bad light. If we had an article on "problems of wikipedia" (probably fails a few other guidelines and policys), that link would be 100% relevant. I think the guideline here needs to be use good sense. Don't link in non-mainspace links that would be a cause to ban you if you posted that content on wikipedia rather then the external site. For in mainspace (the encyclopaedia part, use editorial judgement, firstly a link attacking a wikipedia editor probably won't be relevant to the article as a whole. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Exactly. The issue here is that the status of most "attack sites" is a grey area, the circumstances where it is appropriate to link to them vary, and the nature of a given link in context varies. The same rule cannot possibly be made to apply to a sockpuppet harassing someone on their talk page and to a long-time administrator raising a concern on AN/I. Phil Sandifer 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely, wholeheartedly, and a really really whole lot. My original comment on the RfAR [2] made the same suggestion. The easiest way out of this mess is to interpret the MONGO decision on a link-by-link basis (or a page-by-page basis, if you prefer that wording). This avoids the infuriating dispute over what is and is not an "attack site"...or "the attack site." If a particular link is objectionable, remove it. But always make the decision on each link individually. Don't condemn everything on an entire website just because there may be objectionable material somewhere on the site.

Of course, this suggestion is so sensible that it stands no chance of adoption. Sigh. Casey Abell 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely as well, this issue was also discussed here, as well as every other BADSITES related page that has cropped up since its beginning. This arbcom is very complex, but the term "attack site" is one thing that I am sure I do not like. The term "attack sites" has and will lead to disruption. daveh4h 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that the wording of Proposed principles #4 (which already has two votes of support) would prohibit linking to most news sites such as the New York Times or the Boston Globe:

"4) It is inappropriate to link to external sites which contain substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users."

"Miikka Ryokas, whose user name is Kizor and in an e-mail message said that he was a 22-year-old computer science student from Turku, Finland..." - New York Times

"Wikipedia administrator Ryan Kaldari, 28, of Nashville, is an active vandal-fighter. A programmer who edited his high school newspaper, Kaldari said..." - The Boston Globe

Kaldari 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the intent is to refer to sites that provide identifying information that editors do not disclose voluntarily. Additionally, discussion in this case has distinguished between sites that may contain an editor's name on a sporadic basis or if the editor is a prominent individual, as opposed to sites that seek to uncover and publish editors' personal identifying information for purposes such as harassment. Newyorkbrad 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bogus strawman arguments. substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users obviously does not apply to users who have voluntarily identified themselves to a newspaper. We're talking about sites that have claimed that editors are mentally ill, published photos of their infirm grandparents in an attempt to intimidate them, claimed that other users were paid spies, and given out the address and phone number of teenaged editors who annoyed them. Thatcher131 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal says absolutely nothing about whether or not the information is voluntarily submitted. If the intent of the proposal is different than what it says, the wording of the proposal needs to be edited. I don't have time to get into a pointless debate about what the ArbCom "obviously" "intends" with this proposal. Either correct the wording of the proposal or vote against it please. Kaldari 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to do either of those things, but I agree the language of the proposal could stand to be clarified. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect Brad, I don't think it is necessary to change the wording of the proposal. Words like "substantial" and "negative" should be interpreted with common sense. There has been a concerted effort around this issue to use straw men, to obfuscate, to wikilawyer, and to ignore common sense, and any wording needed to make these principles immune to deliberate misinterpretation just fuels the idea that common sense does not apply on wikipedia and that only those rules that are written down in triplicate after a 6 month debate are enforceable. No one other than a straw man would try to place the Times in the same category as web sites which "out" people who have chosen to remain anonymous, or that allege that Wikipedia admins are being paid by Israel to enforce a pro-zionist point of view. If it is not common sense that a site which advocates calling an editors' private phone number in the middle of the night should not be linked to under any circumstance, but that Michaelmoore.com should be linked to, even if in a fit of pique he briefly suggests vandalizing someone's user page, then I am editing the wrong encyclopedia. Thatcher131 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By any common sense reading of the proposed principle (albeit out of context), we would be banning both the New York Times and the Boston Globe at the least. Do you contend that neither of the examples I cited could be considered "substantial identifying information"??? By any interpretation of that wording, "common sense" or otherwise, we are giving people an excuse to purge perfectly acceptable external links. I'm not "wiki-lawyering", I'm just pointing out that the wording is extremely sloppy here, so let's fix it. Why does this have to be a big bruhaha? Kaldari 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is rarely common. The last word I've heard, the participants still stand by the deletions of MichaelMoore as appropriate. If he were to post similar material on his site tommorrow, they would seriously delete his links again. Speak up if I'm wrong, guys, but that's the way I understand it. --Alecmconroy 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The substance of Thatcher131's point is, of course, completely well-taken. Personally I think adding an appropriate adjective or two to the wording couldn't hurt, but as I said above in this thread, it's pellucid what the proposed language is supposed to mean. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had told you a year ago that the MONGO case was going to lead to an edit war where people were purging MichaelMoore from the encyclopedia, you'd have dismissed it as a ridiculous strawman. Yet it happened-- and according to MONGO and Fred, it should happen again in the future situations like Michael Moore. Under the new policy Fred's proposed, links can be purged even if they are highly notable and reliable. --Alecmconroy 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a good start you could simply change that "or" to an "and" in the proposed principle. Kaldari 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, you do realize that many people, including ElinorD, MONGO, and Fred Bauder, have insisted that the Michael Moore website should not have been linked to, right? Suggesting that this practice will be applied to censor any site which can be perceived as attacking a single user is not a 'straw man' argument. It is exactly what the proponents of this practice have actually advocated and done. Fred just specifically re-affirmed his support for the Michael Moore link removals on the Workshop page yesterday.

Nor is the possibility of major newspapers 'outing' Wikipedia contributors some absurd hypothetical. I think we can all be quite certain that if Brandt had found out Essjay's identity on his own, as he has done many times before, rather than as a result of the correct info being supplied to Wikia, then he still would have gone to the New Yorker, they still would have printed a correction, and it still would have made news in virtually every major paper on the planet. Essjay certainly didn't want that information widely broadcast, nor did he reveal all the details of his personal life which later appeared in print. Even with the self-identification, that fiasco was every bit as much, a revelation of 'private' information and the result of an effort (by Brandt) to 'harass' as the Michael Moore situation... actually much moreso in my opinion.

Fortunately, there is a point of notability at which even the most ardent supporters of 'BADSITES' realize it is contrary to the fundamental purposes of Wikipedia. The Times is safe. But michaelmoore.com, per Fred, is not. Which is precisely the problem. The practice of banning links and/or any mention of a site is inherently contrary to the impartial representation of relevant information (aka 'building an encyclopedia'), but we are now engaged not in removing this bad practice but rather in horse-trading over where we shall draw the line below which bias is 'allowed'. --CBD 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, users who link to attack sites may be BANNED? With no duration? One link, in good faith, or in the context of the article space and poof, you're perma-banned? Is this seriously what Fred and Flo are proposing? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If shorter bans won't work, after a warning, yes. But no, no surprises of the sort you suggest. Fred Bauder 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rag on Fred, but he's either "too close" to this case or acting with haste or something. Even if it were a given that someone wanted to be able to ban sites like ASM, his proposal is so extreme that it's hard to believe he could seriously want what he's asking for. Maybe he's doing that old "Make your first offer high so you have somewhere to bargain down from" or maybe he just hasn't thought it through.. (or, maybe I'm wrong, and it's a wonderful policy). --Alecmconroy 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the proposed enforcement provision (including "after a warning" and "... may be blocked for an appropriate length of time") would seem more consistent with the usual practice. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even when it's restricted to users familiar with the case, a block without warning for mentioning that ASM exists seems pretty harsh to me. ShaleZero 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's say that one of these so-called "attack sites" becomes notable. Let's say really notable. Articles in the NYT, Newsweek, etc. Am I to understand that an article about it, with a link to the site would not be allowed? This seems like a gross violation of NPOV. The problem I have with the currently proposed remedies/principles is that they have absolutely no regard for context. Yes, I can absolutely see why linking to one of these sites in a discussion or out of context should be considered a personal attack. However, in proper context, it's not clear to me why we should be banning even the mere mention of such sites. The lack of distinction between these two situations (which is what's causing most of the dispute, as far as I can see), is disturbing.

I also want to add that not mentioning "the site" in a ruling forbidding people from mentioning it is really silly. I've followed this back and determined what site we're talking about, but it really just underlines the ridiculousness of disregarding context when you can't even tell people what site it is that you don't want them to talk about. -Chunky Rice 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fred Bauder has gone back and now added (in proposed finding of fact 1) the name of the site about which he's primarily concerned. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I read the ruling, having an article about one of these sites would in and of itself be a violation, as said article would by definition be a "reference" to the site. Kirill 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show that I'm not always a nagging critic of ArbCom, I want to compliment Kirill on the great good sense he's shown in this case. I hope the remaining arbitrators will carefully consider his well-founded arguments as they vote.

I was surprised when I finally figured out that Fred's "moral depravity" site was ASM. I figured he was talking about ED, which makes ASM look like the soul of respectability. ED doesn't just harass Wikipedia editors, but it does so in a grossly and intentionally obscene manner, unlike ASM. In fact, Encyclopedia Dramatica may well be the next test case for this endless BADSITES hoohah.

Like it or not, ED has steadily risen in the Alexa rankings, and is now resting comfortably in the top five thousand. It's not unimaginable that the site will eventually crack the top thousand – there's always a market for gross-out comedy – and start to garner some notices, at least in the semi-respectable web press. Right now there's a reference to the site in a respectable press outlet in the Google news cache, [3] and there's probably more on the way. Sooner or later, somebody will probably try to recreate the article on ED with those third-party sources, and we'll all be yelping about BADSITES again.

If ArbCom would only clarify that the MONGO decision applies on a link-by-link (or page-by-page) basis, we could avoid all the unsolvable problems of identifying BADSITES to be blacklisted. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but a link-by-link approach is the only reasonable and fair way out of this mess. Casey Abell 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can we possibly justify omitting otherwise valid content from this encyclopedia simply because we do not like that content? If an "attack site" is notable and a well written, well referenced article could be written on it, there is no possible justification (even protecting Wikipedia editors) for not allowing it. Because once we do that, we cross a line into territory where we (or at last Arbcom) can make decisions on what we can and cannot write about, based on not liking the content. I've seen AfDs of notable (but potentially offensive) organizations like NAMBLA before. Wouldn't a ruling like the ones proposed open the door to deleting these entries, as well? I honestly don't understand what Fred Bauder and FloNight are thinking. -Chunky Rice 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPA has tradionally been controversial and does not appear to have consensual support. However, the finding that "Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks ..." effectively asserts that RPA is policy. Is that the ArbCom's intent? >Radiant< 11:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More a restatement of the right of self defense. Fred Bauder 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that arbcom is in a grey area of not setting policy, but having enforceable rulings, I would say that anything the community doesn't liek they can summarily ignore, short of "punishments" and remedies. Viridae^Talk 11:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but given that plenty of the users have the tendency to say "I can do this because arbcom said so" I thought I'd ask for a preemptive clarification. Note how in a recent case, much of the debate centered on the definition of "wheel war", and this was caused by the ArbCom in a prior case defining the term in a way that contradicts WP:WHEEL. >Radiant< 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the argument that "the arbcom has found X actionable" is generally a highly persuasive one. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Arbcom doesn't make policy is both true and a non-starter. Real life courts don't make law, either. They do, however, interpret existing law and their rulings have very real and long lasting impacts in the way laws are applied. Like an appeals court of the Supreme court, Arbcom should consider every potential application of the ruling that they hand down. Wording, phrasing, potential consequences. These all should be considered very carefully. -Chunky Rice 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, that's only true in countries with Common Law. In most countries (e.g. countries with Civil Law), courts cannot create new interpretations of laws or consider "common practice" in their judgements, and their rulings must be based entirely on existing laws. Melsaran (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being ethnocentric. Regardless, I think my point is valid. -Chunky Rice 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, arbcom rulings should be worded very carefully because they tend to be cited a lot (as happened with the ~MONGO ruling). Melsaran (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the ArbCom cannot make policy. WP:RPA was rejected, yet the ArbCom does now want to adopt a principle saying "Users have the right to (...) remov[e] personal attacks", which directly contradicts community consensus on the issue. That seems wrong to me. Melsaran (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the personal feelings of the targeted clearly are of a nature as to override community consensus. I say "personal feelings" and not "personal security" because no action being contemplated here by the ArbCom, or undertaken by editors or admins, provides anyone with greater or lesser protection whatsoever with respect to stalking, only higher or lower levels of annoyance with respect to appositionally problematized and problematic editors.—AL ^FOCUS! 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A policy that users could not remove personal attacks would be even more wrong. Fred Bauder 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my considered opinion that the proposed "right of self defense" amounts to an unlimited license to edit war over any remark which any editor finds even remotely offensive. This would not be a wise move on the part of the Arbitration Committee, nor is (as others have noted) it wise for the ArbCom to establish by the law of the case policy which the community has rejected. Doing so would merely undermine the ArbCom's support within the community.

The comment I made last night to NewYorkBrad is that you people are trying to ban elephants without actually mentioning elephants. Instead of wasting your own, and everyone else's, time trying to find some clever way to prohibit pachyderms from nesting in the corner without putting up a "NO ELEPHANTS" sign, just come out and say "This is bad. Don't do it. Move along." Geez.

I would also remind the Arbitrators that they must never create policies to protect the community which interfere with writing the encyclopedia. I notice that several of the proposed points in the decision would do exactly that, and that Kirill has rightly rejected them on that basis. I call upon Fred and Flonight to reverse their unfortunate decisions in these matters, and for the rest of the Arbitrators to remember that this is a project to write an encyclopedia, and not merely a social gathering site. The day any one of you puts keeping social harmony within the community, or the feelings of any one member of it, ahead of writing the encyclopedia to the point that you make rules that interfere with writing the encyclopedia is the day you yourself should be banned from this project. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did ignoring the feelings of others get you? Fred Bauder 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, it pains me to be put in the position of ignoring you, but if the best you can do is to make such bankrupt comments as that, I see no point in engaging with you. It is grossly inappropriate for Arbitrators to make arguments ad hominem or to erect strawmen, and yet you have just done both. Congratulations on disappointing me yet further. I shall not participate further in this discussion, as I see no further reason to pay any attention whatsoever to the Arbitration Committee or its pronouncements. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there is a line to be drawn. If someone goes around actively irritating other editors for no good reason, this makes improving the encyclopedia more difficult. Yes, making a good encyclopedia is more important than being "friends" and holding hands, but this can be taken too far. Editors who cannot abide by the community's expectations of civilized behavior need to be shown the door, even if they also make useful article edits. Friday (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be applied, as in the old FidoNet policy, in the manner of "Don't be excessively annoying; don't be too easily annoyed." A "reasonable-person principle" should apply, where something reasonably considered to be unnecessary irritation should be subject to sanction, but attempts to find subjective irritation in behavior that a reasonable assessment finds not to be excessive should not. People can take offense at anything and everything, but that doesn't grant an unlimited right to compel others to ban everything they dislike. Going out of your way to do something just to annoy somebody, even if it might in other circumstances be reasonable, can be considered an attack, however; but, on the other side of the coin, going out of your way to find things not even aimed in any way at you to be attacks on you is unreasonable. *Dan T.* 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If someone goes around actively irritating other editors for no good reason"... then we block them. No censorship of valid encyclopedic content required. I'm the first to insist on civil behaviour, but the one has nothing to do with the other. Proponents of BADSITES keep going on about all the evils that stalkers and harassers commit... despite the fact that those constitute clear grounds to block them without any need for the policy changes advocated. It isn't an 'either we block bad people or we build a proper encyclopedia' issue... toss 'BADSITES' and its progeny out the window and we can continue doing both just fine. --CBD 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed principle #12 states that "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication", and refers the reader to a site arguing that Hyperlinking to libel is republishing a libel. I have a couple of problems with this; firstly, I'm not clear on the legal issue, nor on the source cited. My understanding of Barrett v. Rosenthal (incidentally, the subject of an earlier Wikipedia ArbCom case) is that individual users were found immune from liability for the republication of defamatory content on the Internet under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This apparently relevant high-profile case is not discussed in the review cited by User:Fred Bauder (presumably it post-dates the review?), and the review itself contains the disclaimer that "This is a literature review prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as legal advice."

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am way out of my depth here, but should we really be bringing the legal system into this by using terms like "libel" and "defamation"? Not only are we apparently on very shaky ground legally, if I interpret the implications of Barrett v. Rosenthal correctly, but we're citing a source that would probably fail our WP:RS guidelines to support the principle. Most importantly, the principle edges way too close to violating the spirit of no legal threats. Is this of concern to anyone else, or am I taking crazy pills? MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the community considers the link, with administrators reverting its removal, and the arbitration committee approving of it, the fact pattern might change. Remember that anything that any judge takes seriously is a legal hazard. Fred Bauder 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the next section. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does say "may constitute republicantion" which is true. It might. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any really definitive case law or legislation on the matter. The whole thing is highly speculative, though, and I generally agree, inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is what it is, consideration of the question by someone versed in the area, but not an attorney. It is advanced as a marker of possible danger, not as black letter law. Fred Bauder 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's an interesting topic, probably worthy of discussion somewhere on Wikipedia. I'm just not convinced that it needs to be an affirmed principle of Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments below fully, I suppose my major concern is that "advancing a marker of possible legal danger" and "making a legal threat" seem semantically equivalent (cf. "I advance a marker of possible danger, you make a legal threat"). Even where real legal danger exists (which is by no means clear in this case), somewhat heavy-handed warnings about said legal danger tend to have a net negative chilling or intimidating effect on the encyclopedia-building process - I think this is reason why the community has codified WP:NLT. Giving ArbCom sanction to this principle, as worded, seems counter to that policy. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say was that I think that the main issue is that it's not just a warning/discussion, it's an Arbcom ruling. If this topic were brought up at the Villiage Pump, I think it would be an interesting, productive discussion. With Arbcom ruling it as a principle in this case, I think you're right about the effect it may have. -Chunky Rice 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that BADSITES must be enacted to protect Wikimedia Foundation from exposure to libel lawsuits is patently absurd. A link is not inherently a republication, regardless of armchair lawyer wannabes opining to the contrary. Legalese aside, just note that Google links to every "attacksite" we've discussed, and it's still in business. Raising the specter of libel is just digging really deep to try to defend an indefensible policy proposal. --Alecmconroy 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and agree with much, though not all, of what various arbitrators have written in the proposed decision, and look forward to input from the other arbitrators in the hope that a consensus set of principles here can be arrived at. However, I would strongly caution the arbitrators against adopting in its current form proposed principle 12, which states, "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication."

I believe that I understand the purpose of this proposal, which I assume is to remind editors that they have ethical, and perhaps in extreme cases legal, responsibility if links to sites containing grossly defamatory material are included in Wikipedia pages. I also note that the proposal contains the word "may," and thus is not necessarily taking a stand on what the outcome might be in the event of a challenge to any particular link.

Nonetheless, I am concerned that this one-sentence proposal oversimplies a highly complex, sometimes unsettled, and continuously evolving area of the law, even apart from the question of which jurisdiction's law might apply in a given situation. In addition, the webpage at the cited link is extremely confusing and does not appear to be a reliable source. Most troubling, I am concerned that this principle would be misapplied far beyond its intended scope and could be misused in an attempt to create liability for our editors and/or for the project that might not otherwise exist. I would urge that this proposal be dropped or substantially revised. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we publish in every jurisdiction on earth. While we cheerfully defy Chinese and Saudi law with respect to matters of substance, there is no reason not to conform to prohibitions against malicious publication. Fred Bauder 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this would be mis-cited in every content dispute about adding an external link between now and the end of time. It also might be taken as a statement of the Foundation's or the project's position on whether liability should exist. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Foundation's lawyers should be venturing statements as to what legal liabilities might exist (in any context that goes beyond idle chatter). *Dan T.* 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This takes a lot of the worst out of the decision, but it still raises a major problem - this is, as it stands, a content ruling that antisocialmedia.net should not be mentioned by name in any context including the Overstock.com article. Even if that viewpoint were true, it is outside this committee's mandate to determine this. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a content issue. The article could be improved and still not mention the site if that is the ruling of ArbCom. For instance, a section header of "Website critical of critics" would be a more informative section header than "antisocialmedia.net" which means nothing to most people. That leaves one remaining reference which can be removed without hurting the quality of the article. As for "taking the worst out of the decision," I assume you mean limiting the scope. A limited scope decision is one that I have favored from the beginning. --Mantanmoreland 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Fred's latest fine-tuning is, but proposed principle #14 is an exact restatement of BADSITES:

Malicious sites

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

The only difference is that BADSITES is now called MALICIOUSSITES. The new name is not an improvement – it's just longer. Under the BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES proposal, any editor can claim a site is "substantially" (whatever that means) engaged in "cyberstalking" (whatever that means) and start ripping out every link to the site. This will make the Michael Moore war look like a kumbaya love-in.

One more time: please stop trying to define "attack sites." Any attempted definition will set off endless edit wars and disruption over whether an entire site meets the criteria. Instead, define an "attack link" (or page) and emphasize that a link may only be removed for its specific content, not objectionable content elsewhere on the site where the link resides. You will still get disagreements over specific links, but you won't get rampaging campaigns to rip out every link to sites that people dislike. Casey Abell 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES will go through, since Kirill has signed off on it. So BADSITES will soon be Wikipedia law. At least there will be a lot of laughs as every site imaginable gets its links ripped out of the encyclopedia because somewhere on the site somebody found an unkind remark about a Wikipedia editor. My guess is that this silliness will eventually get into the mainstream media. I can see the headline: Wikipedia Doesn't Mind Criticism – Except of Itself. WP will deserve all the bad p.r. Oh well, I'll conclude my remarks here and get back to writing an encyclopedia, with external links that I hope won't get torn out too often. Casey Abell 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If BADSITES does get passed in this, it's a 99% certainty that a major media piece about it will be run sooner or later. That's not the end of the world, of course-- such a story would basically be a RFC that would solicit wider comment on the policy from the larger community-- this time the GLOBAL community.

I know there will be no shortage of people trying to alert journalists to the change in policy. We're not just purging ED trolls anymore, we've advanced to the big leagues. Hugo Award Winning authors, Hollywood film producers, millionaires-- and that's just so far. And you can bet that journalists would jump at the chance to "break" the story about the latest Wikipedia controversy.

The downside is that Wikipedia's credibility and objectivity will take a big hit-- even though we'll repeal the policy once the real journalists start criticizing us for it, the damage will be done. Let us all hope that the whole mess can be averted now. --Alecmconroy 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there may be media coverage, in that this revolves around a person (Judd Bagley) and a website (antisocialmedia.net) that attack the media and are clearly loathed by the press. (How many times does the staid Bloomberg news service refer to something as "creepy"?) But very much the reverse of your "sky is falling" scenario.--Samiharris 07:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason that "The Sky Is Falling" is that two arbiter has endorsed an option that says, in essence, NPOV doesn't apply to matters involving Wikipedia editors. That alone is why the sky is falling.

But, if the mere principle of the matter doesn't scare us, the bad press should. I personally called two different journalistic ethics hotlines and spoke with about four people in total. Their responses ranged from "disapproving" to "outraged". (Obviously, you can't take my word for that, and argument by authority is invalid anyway, and the people I spoke with only heard my side of it, and wikipedia presents unique circumstances that the ethics experts aren't accustomed to facing).

But, I can practically guarantee this will get new coverage. I double Judd Bagley is the person who will get it, but you never know. Who would have thought somebody like Daniel Brandt could get The Essjay Controversy picked by every major media outlet?

My bet is, if the policy is passed, it'll go down like this. Days after the new policy gets passed, antisocial will get purged, and the damage looks minimal at first. ASM is "creepy" and clearly "marginal". But our users won't be content to stop there-- there's a whole internet full of people who can attack us-- and get purged. Wikitruth and that group of sites will be next on the chopping block, but hey, they're notable, but they're not "that" notable-- we can still have an encyclopedia without those freaks, right?

If it goes that far without repealing the policy, people will start getting crazy. Somebody will, I don't know, hypothetically speaking, remove all the links to a Hugo-Award Winning Author. Or, equally hypothetically, somebody could decide to declare A World-Famous Left-Wing Provacateur a BADSITE and purge all his links, just in case he hasn't decided who to make his next documentary about. Or, god forbid, some journalist outs one of our users for a conflict of interest or misrepresenting themselves, and they get declared a BADSITE, and purged. Somebody gets mad about being purged-- they pick up a phone and call Andrew Orlowski or Andrew Keen or anybody else who would love to get in on the ground floor of the latest Wikicontroversy.

The story is so juicy, it practically writes itself. We've learned Wikipedia maintains an "Enemies List" of people who have criticized it or harassed its editors-- the spectre of Nixon looms in the background. Wikipedia has ordered that notable people be purged from its texts-- rewritten out of history, as if they didn't exist. The name of Stalin, hyperbolic and inappropriate though it is, will merit a mention.

And then it's just as short digg or slashdot or APwire away from showing up on CNN and Stephen Colbert.

We'll respond in desperation "the policy was misused by bad people-- it was never meant to apply to notable sources, we've added (MichaelMoore or whomever) back in, and we're looking into the situation". And we'll be back where we started, except with a big black eye.

And if you think all that is just a fable-- just watch. Just sit back with some popcorn, and try your best to "enjoy" the show. Because when I called the original MONGO case a dangerous precedent that would wind up being applied to NOTABLE sources, everyone laughed and said "the sky is falling, is it, Alec? Don't be silly-- nobody would ever apply this to a notable source" And yet here we are--- MakingLights was removed, MichaelMoore was removed, and the people involved stand by their actions, and promise to do it again in the future.

Honestly, we're lucky it hasn't happened already. Cory Doctorow has been involved in this. Michael Moore has been involved in this. These aren't just ED trolls, these are serious, news sources. Did you guys SEE Michael Moore tear into CNN's Sanjay Gupta, over a very minor dispute over some numbers? You don't think he could have had a field day with our little linkpurge tantrum after he outed a wikipedian with a conflict of interest?

Fear isn't the point. We shouldn't repeal NPOV because NPOV is what it's all about. But if that doesn't motivate you-- if the only thing that matters is Wikipedia Editor's getting attacked-- then fear the attacks that this policy will create. Be terrified of them. Because they will happen, and then our problems won't be ED and ASM and freaks anymore-- it'll be a famous author or a political activist or a politician or a journalist. People who won't just call us nasty names, but people who will tell the world "Wikipedia is holding grudges and acting on vendettas." And we will WISH we had just let the stupid, trivial, namecalling little trolls have their one lousy link.

End of Cassandra Speech. --Alecmconroy 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe all that paranoid rubbish?--Samiharris 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alec is laying out a mildly exaggerated and slightly poorly phrased map of something that, yes, would almost certainly happen under this policy. We've gotten enough bad press out of Jimbo correcting his birthday on his article. To say nothing of the decision to not list Larry Sanger as a co-founder of Wikipedia.

The thing to remember here is that we are the big fish on the Internet now. We get 8% of Internet users every day. And that's growing. We have a terrifying amount of power. Administrators have even more power - there's one active administrator for every 2,183 articles. Yes - if that power starts to get used in a manner even remotely contrary to the stated mission of the site, I think we're going to have a PR disaster that will make Siegenthaler look like a good day. Phil Sandifer 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are potentially severe PR repercussions from Wikipedia acting as a friendly habitat for stalkers, nuts, misogynists, and corporate flacks pushing smears like Judd Bagley.--Samiharris 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most disturbing thing about Fred's proposal-- even if he were to limit it to ASM and only ASM-- is that it demonstrates a profound lack of trust in the Wikipedia Community and the Wikipedia Process.

This case is a request for clarification-- all that needs saying is "Let the community decide if ASM, and pages like it, are notable enough to merit an inclusion".

The fact is, the Wikipedia consensus building process works. It works on debates between Israelis and Palestinians, it works on debates between creationists and evolutionists, and it will work on debates between Wikipedia Supporters and Wikipedia critics.

The implied counter-argument, which I assume Fred endorses although he hasn't said so, is that the debate (over ASM and others) is too important to be left up to the community. Sure, the consensus building process will work on less important matters like Israel-Palestine or holocaust deniers or hate groups, but for something that could actually hurt Wikipedians, we dare not leave it up to the Community-- they might make the wrong decision, or they might take too long in making up their minds.

The community works. Let us handle it. We don't need the "grown ups" to step in and stop the consensus building process. I have no idea whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion or not-- but I have confidence that the community will come to the correct decision about this matter-- just like it has on all the other 2 million articles.

Arbcom trying to circumvent consensus building, even if for noble goals, is not what Wikipedia is about. --Alecmconroy 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of Scope of this decision seems to me to be likely simply to prolong the conflict, because it essentially repeats the lack of definition which is at the root of the conflict in the first place. One man's criticism is another man's malice; the current scope statement simply invites disputes over whether the ciriticism is malicious enough, as one can see in the ongoing discussion of the disputes between User:Will Beback and Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Mangoe 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling Wikipedia editors derogatory terms, publishing their real names, and then making fun of the names legitimate criticism or is it harassment? Yes, it would help if the decision can make this distinction clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that the decision does not rest on the ontological nature of the site in question. This was the main problem with the TNH incident - yes, the attack on you was uncalled for and unacceptable. But 99% of the site is not unacceptable, and much of the site was and is useful. Do we delink the entire site, including instances where the link has nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on you?

If so, then we are entering a paradigm where good faith actions are being considered personal attacks. This is not a paradigm I am comfortable with, and it is one that I am shocked to see Fred and FloNight seriously considering. Phil Sandifer 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make this about me. What percentage of the content in ED is harassment related? Let's we say that a site with only 1% of its content involving harassment is OK, but one with 5% is not. Does the harassment become acceptable if more non-harassing content is added? How much good content does ASM need to add before their harassment percentage is brought to an acceptable level? 10 pages? 100 pages? A percentage formula would be easily gamed. I think that the type of harassment and the reaction of the webmasters to complaints is more important than the share of a site's content that's devoted to harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - this is why any attempt to determine the nature of the site is, to my mind, foolish - we're drawing arbitrary lines. Whereas, to my mind, ED is easily dealt with, because I cannot conceive of a case where an even remotely sane editor would, in good faith, link to ED. It's not useful as a source, it's not a notable website, there is nothing there.

I am hard pressed to come up with a circumstance, real or imagined, where asking "Is this a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" does not give you the correct answer on whether to link to an attack site. Phil Sandifer 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is that as long as we aren't directing people who aren't looking for attacks to go find them, we are doing our job. That's been the exact problem with the "official site" cases: we didn't say there were attacks there, so from that angle we were no more culpable than Google for giving the name of the site. It doesn't help for ED or ASM.net, of course, because we can't even cite a page that names them without indicating that they contain attacks, even if the site name doesn't appear in our text. And WR? Who can say? I personally would assume that any site whose purpose is discussion of Wikipedia contains attacks-- including Wikipedia itself. But I am notoriously cynical about that. And as far as people who are looking for attacks are concerned, we can't hinder them; but by invoking BADSITES, we can help them.Mangoe 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if ED rises to the level of notability that justifies an article. This is not beyond the realm of possibility by any means. Will we omit content from the encyclopedia for non-encyclopedic reasons? Is being an encyclopedia or being a community more primary to Wikipedia? -Chunky Rice 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer's suggestion makes some sense, but there are circumstances when it wouldn't make so much sense. What about the MM.com example, where the purported attack was on the home page and which may not have been there when the link was initially created? Do we say, "well, it was added with good intent so there's no cause to remove it"? Or "we're not directing people to the harassment, and it's not our fault that it's unavoidably obvious"? I don't think that's a workable standard by itself. I think we have to gauge the harm it causes to the project, not just the intent of the editor adding it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Moore site link should have stayed on the Michael Moore page. Regardless of whether or not it was an attack site, it was an encyclopedic addition to the page and there is/was no encyclopedic reason to remove it. -Chunky Rice 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go off on a tangent about Michael Moore, the point that Phil was making is that we should judge the intent of the person adding the link rather than the content of the site. Do you agree with that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, yes. Though my preferred terminology is context, since intent can be difficult to derive. There are contexts where "attack sites" may be appropriate and contexts where they are not. Using MM.com as an example, putting a link to it on the Michael Moore page is proper context and should be allowed, no matter what the content of the site. -Chunky Rice 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it immune from being considered an attack site? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all. What I'm saying is that whether or not it is an attack site is irreleveant to whether or not it is an encyclopedic addition to the article. The latter should be our primary concern, not the former. -Chunky Rice 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(In honor of Michael Moore, let's go left, shall we?) If we're going to go to a "harm to the encyclopedia" standard, though, we get into the troublesome question of what the greater harm is - the harassment from Moore or the removal of encyclopedic content sourced from his website. It's worth noting, we've made the offensiveness and hurtfulness vs. encyclopedic value calculus before - Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Felching, anything that Perverted Justice has ever been up in arms about, Scientology, etc. Every time, we've decided on encyclopedic content. To reverse that when we're the people being offended and hurt seems... unwise.

Which is not to propose a policy "Always link to attack sites." Editorial judgment about a link still needs to play in. We include the Muhammad cartoons not because we can, but because they're essential to the article. And nothing prevents us from reverting an ill-considered but good faith edit that includes a link to an attack site. It's just that such edits do seem to me to be in a different category than "LULZ ADMIN X IS A LOSER (link to ED)." But to say that, for instance, the citations of information to Michael Moore's website on Michael Moore (and, by extension, the information that is sourced to his website) has to come out because of what Moore says on his website does not seem to me an acceptable position. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even a site mostly devoted to attacks on Wikipeia editors would still be acceptable (even required) if it contained some information an editor wished to cite? Or added to the external links just because it belongs to a persona or entity we have an article about? In the (hypothetical) case of a site which actively tries to get editors fired, does providing a link to the site do more to improve Wikipedia than the editors who are driven away? Does that one edit linking a dubious site outweigh the thousands of edits that a productive editor can contribute? I'd say we need to be more practical. If something harms the project and keeps us from writing a good encyclopedia then we should prohibit it. Driving away volunteers harms the project. Deleting a few hot links does not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we do what you say, we're basically saying that Wikipedia is a community first and an encyclopedia second. That's not what I understood this project to be about. -Chunky Rice 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly don't mean that. But without the community the encyclopedia doesn't exist. Removing an external link does not remove significant content from an article. Removing an editor who writes dozens of articles does affect content significantly. Participants, even valued contributors, are sometimes banned when they engage in disruptive personal attacks. Websites that engage in disruptive harassment should be treated likewise. Neither helps us continue the work of building an encyclopedia. So, in my opinion, webmasters of that host harassment of Wikipedia and that have links from Wikipedia article should be asked to remove the harasment and if they choose to maintain the harasing material then the community should respond by removing the disruption. That's how we handle disruptive editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the damage done by compromising our core principle of NPOV far outweighs any damage from losing editors. Which is not to say that we shouldn't protect editors as much as we can. However, when it comes to making a choice between encyclopedic content and personal feelings, encyclopedic content must win, every time. -Chunky Rice 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does removing a link compromise NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of why it's being removed. It's being removed because we don't like it. That's a violation of NPOV. There's no encyclopedic reason to remove such a link, or at least nobody's raised one that I've heard. -Chunky Rice 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the simpler case of an external link to the website of a person with a biography. Let's further simplify it by stipulating that none of the article is actually sourced to that website. How does it affect the article's neutrality if we include or exclude the link? Is the article skewed against the subject if we forget to ever include the link? Is it skewed the other way if we include multiple links to the same site? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point of this scenario is. That there are times when an external link isn't 100% needed? Sure I grant that. But there are also times where it is appropriate. Surely you must admit that. Aside from that, what if the article is about the site itself. Under some of the proposed language, the entire article should be removed. -Chunky Rice 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing an external link does not remove significant content from an article." I still don't get where we get this crazy myth that the links aren't important. Our links are the very HEART of WP:V. Our links are the most important part of the encyclopedia. Pull out all our links and we don't have a verifiable encyclopedia-- we have a glorified message board. --Alecmconroy 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the encyclopedia are the text, data, and images in the articles. Links to other sites make verification a little easier, but we don't need external links when we use books and other printed materials as sources. The aim has always been to create an encyclopedia that could be printed out or otherwise used without connections to the web. Wikipedia is not a link farm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I think the problematic line in what Will wrote is "if it contained some information that an editor wanted to cite," in that it suggests that what information is included in articles is somehow a matter of personal inclination. If an important part of an article on a clearly notable topic requires a citation to a site that is defamatory, yes - I am saying we have to link to it. This seems to me, on a fundamental level, mandated by m:Foundation principles, which lists NPOV and does not list anything about preserving the community. (And it should be noted, I tend to construe NPOV rather broadly as directly implying things like WP:V, WP:CS, WP:RS, etc.) Again, I think this is a terrible precedent to set - we'll include images that are so offensive that people have killed each other over them (The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) but the moment the offensive content threatens us we censor it? What a terrible betrayal of NPOV. Phil Sandifer 03:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've been trying to say all week, put better than I ever could. Uh...ditto? ShaleZero 03:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor thinks that some site which engages in intentional harassment of Wikipedia users is really a reliable site and contains information important to an article, then he can add the info and provide a non-linked reference back to the source. No loss of content, no loss of NPOV. None of the proposals I've seen forbid using even attack sites as references; they only prohibit linking directly to the sites or pages. The contents and style of citations have many different conventions. It doesn't violate scholarly norms or Wikipedia principles to present citation information in one valid form rather than another.

We already block a large number of websites from hotlinking, mostly because of spam. Spam is a huge distraction for vandal patrolers and without the blacklist it would be disruptive. I think we'd all agree that the blacklisting of thousands of websites has helped Wikipedia's mission instead of hurting it. Hotlinking to outside websites is not part of Wikipedia's mission and it isn't necessary to achieve that mission. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several of the proposed principles, remedies would forbid not only linking, but even referencing such a site. This is the part of the proposed ruling that I have a real problem with. -Chunky Rice 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully appreciate the battle against spam; I run a specialized wiki myself and get besieged by Chinese spammers trying to hide their completely irrelevant links everywhere they can. However, that is not even in the same universe as people who, to make an on-topic point, include a link to something in a site for which you have a personal distaste. *Dan T.* 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to anyone that occasionally we're in the situation where we cover/link to notable living people, who wish we wouldn't cover them. Normally, we say that the subject of the biography does not have automatic authority to require a deletion of their own biography.

Under the policy that is being proposed-- all such a person would have to do is attack us in a sufficiently malicious way on their website-- we then would be REQUIRED to delete all links or references to that person. Presumable we would invoke Ignore All Rules in such a situation and not reward malicious attacks, but still-- it's another reason we shouldn't be willy-nilly adopting radical departures from NPOV.

It seems like this policy could actually ENCOURAGE attacks, not discourage them. --Alecmconroy 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting links to a person's website is not the same as deleting mentions of the person in the encyclopedia. Notable people are referenced in sources besides their personal websites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all highly theoretical-- but suppose the attack site's name and the person's name were the same-- deleting all mention of the site would be the same as deleting all mention of the person.

I'm don't mean to make too big a deal out of this "gaming AFD" objection-- I think common sense by our editors would prevent this from being a problem. I'm just saying, current Wikipedia policy is: "Our articles are NPOV, period. You cannot influence us by your bad behavior, period. Our articles stand on their own. Attacking us will not buy you links if you're not notable. Attacking us will not prevent us from linking if you are notable. Bad behavior does not rule our articles, NPOV does.".

If we're gonna deviate from that, it's something to really sit back and think about long and hard. And it really should come from the community or the foundation or both. not Arbcom. --Alecmconroy 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could imagine all sorts of strange scenarios, but we've had enough experience with actual cases to keep our policy making grounded in the real world. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, I could theoretically get ANY site with an open forum purged under this new proposed policy. Suppose I have an axe to grind against site "X"-- I just go to site X's forum and maliciously attack a wikipedia editor. Then I come back to Wikipedia, point out the malicious attack on site X, and proceed to delete all links to site X. Until site X's administrators purge the content I just added, I can delete the links all day and 3RR won't apply to me. AGF will make it very hard for anyone to seriously propose I'm deleting the links for the wrong reasons, but I, in turn, can try to have anyone who reinserts the links blocked for supporting harassment.

Again, this is a scenario that only occur when someone has very bad faith. But there ARE some such people out there, and this proposed policy could give the trolls a shiny new toy to play around with-- and instant way to have any site you don't like purged from Wikipedia, at least temporarily, regardless of its notability. --Alecmconroy 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it'll be adopted by the ArbCom, but my view is that a website that removes harassing meterial is acting responsibly. So the solution in that case would be to make a request first and then see what happens. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we're getting very theoretical here-- the case hinges on the more fundamental principle of what to do when NPOV requires a link a site but MONGOCASE forbids such a link. But, while we're being theoretical-- the proposed policies don't require contacting the website first and giving them a reasonable time to respond. Removal can be instantaneous under the proposed new policy, and we should expect that bad-faith users seeking to game the system will rely upon that to defend their disruptions. --Alecmconroy 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If folks are being disruptive and acting in bad faith then they'll be blocked eventually. Folks acting in bad faith don't follow guidelines or policies anyway. Rather than focussing on creating a policy to regulate those who won't follow it anyway, let's focus on making a policy to help guide reasonable people acting in good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet half the absolutist anti-linking arguments include the plank that the more lenient rules are too easily gamed by disruptive users... ShaleZero 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Folks acting in bad faith don't follow guidelines or policies anyway" My concern isn't that people WON'T follow the new policy-- my concern is that people WILL follow it. Fred's proposing a rule that says "If article content meets <insert extremely vague and emotionally charged criteria here>, then it can be removed indefinitely, even if there is solid consensus to include it". This is a recipe for edit-wars, wheel-wars, and endless arbcom disputes of the form "NPA forbids this vs. NPOV requires this". --Alecmconroy 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think personal attacks should be handled in a caring thoughtful case-by-case inconspicuous manner. It isn't caring to give attacks no consideration at all. It isn't thoughtful to draw up bright-line criteria. Case by case is necessary without bright-line criteria. It is not inconspicuous to draw attention to personal attacks by deleting months old links, to disrupt a conversation by deleting links to evidence being discussed, by creating policy that says a link may be deleted any number of times guaranteeing revert wars and blocks and bans, by turning wikipedia culture into a you are with us or or against us warrior elite and wikipedia itself into a battlefield. WAS 4.250 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]