On 4/24/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: (speaking as a single Arbitrator and not for the committee as a whole ...) The Arbcom judgment was specifically about Encyclopedia Dramatica and did not explicitly state that it should be extended to other attack sites, so it is inappropriate to say that removing links to another site is 'enforcing the MONGO decision' since we didn't say anything about removing links to any other site. It's appropriate to cite our decision as supporting an interpretation of policy that generally allows for the removal of links to attack sites, however. It's important to remember, however, that Arbcom generally does not make policy itself - we do decide on the interpretation of policy, but generally NEW policy is set by the community. Thus, it is appropriate to see our decision as support for the idea of removing links to attack sites in the general case, but not as the actual policy that allows it. It's also worth noting that very little on ED has any value for Wikipedia, as far as I can see, while WR, although generally a trolls' nest as well, has content for which there is a much better argument of relevance. -Matt

Well, naturally Jay would agree with you *rolls eyes*. That aside, there is a good deal of consensus for removing links to pages that are designed to attack or out Wikipedia contributors, but the problem here is those seeking to stretch this consensus to flat-out bans on linking to entire websites, even when the link is a) relevant and b) not designed or intended to attack or out anyone. Just because a website contains some areas or content qualifying under the attack criterion doesn't necessarily mean that the entire website is thus invalid, and it certainly shouldn't justify threatening users with blocks or bans. Slim Virgin wrote:

On 4/25/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: I note that I did not contribute to that request for clarification. In my personal view, things in the 'Principles' or 'Findings of fact' sections in an arbitration case are not remedies. I am uncomfortable with people taking things said in that section as commands from the arbitration committee to do anything. If we wanted to explicitly rule that something should be done, it would be in 'Remedies' or 'Enforcement'. In a sense, what we are saying there is that we believe that existing policy, precedent and/or common sense already contain those things. In this case, six Arbitrators considered not linking to attack sites as already covered by de facto policy. The arbcom is a bad way to make new policy, since there are only a small number of us. We attempt to interpret existing policy for circumstances not explicitly considered by those policies, however. My concern (which is a general one, not just specifically for this case) is about the danger of taking things stated in a short sentence as a principle in a specific arbitration case as being a complete and full interpretation of the entirety of Wikipedia policy on that issue, disallowing any nuance or complexity of interpretation. Assuming that Principles stated in a case are the immutable law of Wikipedia is also a dangerous assumption to make. We do not consider ourselves bound by precedent, for one thing; the Arbcom reserves the right to change its mind in future cases, although sensibly we try not to do that too much. However, we are certainly not bound to keeping precedent if current arbitrators find the precedent an incorrect one. Although applying a governmental model to Wikipedia is in itself a dangerous over-simplification, in most cases it's correct to see the arbitration committee as a judicial arm of government, not a legislative or executive one. We try to come down on the side of interpreting policy, not making policy, though the line is a blurry one. -Matt

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, David Gerard wrote: It's being done. How do we stop it? It's now moved to [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]]. There's quite a lot of bizarreness there; for instance, the current policy quotes the problematic ArbCom decision even though ArbCom can't make policy--and the opposite ArbCom decision saying that the remove personal attacks guideline is controversial has been described as if it only refers to on-wiki attacks, with the implication that removing links to on-wiki attacks is still controversial but removing links to attack sites is not. Worse yet, this version of the page has been protected. What can be done? We seem to have a case where a couple of users, including at least one admin, are insisting that there is consensus for removing links to attack sites unconditionally and regardless of any other circumstances. The lack of nuance or complexity of interpretation is exactly the problem here, and these people are so persistent that it is impossible to stop them without edit warring.

There's not really any reason for that, either. Common sense dictates that if a user posts a link to a site attempting to "out" editors (and that user is clearly doing so in order to troll or engage in harassment), then that edit can be reverted and the user blocked, and current policy agrees. On the other hand, there *are* times where it is appropriate to link to such sites, and people should recognize this. For example, suppose an editor who had posted to WR was up for RFA. It would seem appropriate if a user linked to one of their posts on the forum to question them regarding it. Or, as another example, look at my ArbCom <s>case</s> lynching. Some of my posts to Wikipedia Review were entered as "evidence", and I doubt anyone would consider this to have been inappropriate. The problem with adding new policies or amending existent policies to address the issue of users posting such links is that it is essentially the same as telling them not to stuff beans up their nose. Most good-faith editors wouldn't link to such sites, except for in a select few circumstances where it might be appropriate to do so. But trolls and other bad-faith users, upon seeing such a policy, will actually *look* for the problematic websites. Stirring up drama over this issue actually draws more attention to the websites you are trying to limit the effect of. Probably not a good idea. Slim Virgin wrote:

If we're going to start playing the personal attack game, go fellate yourself. If any reasonably neutral user where to look over the facts of my case, they would clearly see that I was initially a good-faith editor, but turned sour after enduring horrendous personal attacks from you, your friend "Sarah", and others. I was accused of being an anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi, a neo-Nazi sympathizer, and other unpleasantries. I had to deal with massive assumptions of bad faith until I eventually fired back. What was my crime to begin with? I was an administrator on an unpopular webforum and refused to bend to the whims of certain Wikipedia contributors in the way I ran it. Thus, I was targeted, smeared, and eventually banned as a "disruptive troll". And to those ignorant of how I ran the webforum, I took great pains to ensure that problematic content would stay out of search engines. First, I created a members-only subforum for users who wanted to vent personal attacks, and later, after the incident with Katefan0, I modified the board settings so that the "editors" forum would also stay out of search engines. Now, I'll admit that these steps were not entirely sufficient, but I can also say, and honestly, that I have done more than Wikipedia has done to protect people's privacy and their right not to have libel about them spread around the internet. You cannot take any moral high ground, Jay. jayjg wrote:

jayjg wrote: Nice strawman there. Too bad that has nothing to do with any of this. And yes, when you are in agreement with SlimVirgin, I don't take that entirely seriously, because there is an active conflict-of-interest there. You are dedicated to protecting your friend, which isn't entirely a bad thing, but you are certainly not neutral. I don't have the time or desire to go fishing through year-old drama on Wikipedia right now. Well, naturally. I moved or deleted the worst of the personal attacks, and did try to clean up some of the other allegations, but I wasn't entirely successful. Realize that there were multiple admins, and Selina was root. There were times when I did move or delete posts, and then I was reversed without explanation. You wouldn't be aware of all this, naturally. The vandals sockpuppets came later. You and I and pretty much everyone knows this. I did enforce it, when I could, but I wasn't always able to do that as effectively as I wanted to, for reasons I've already described. This doesn't even deserve a response.

On 27/04/07, Blu Aardvark &lt;jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, they sat down at your computer and *made* you sockpuppet furiously. - d.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:53:55 -0700, Blu Aardvark &lt;jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I wasn't aware that inviting people to fellate themselves constitued a valid point. Or is that another straw man? Trouble is, with you, it's really hard to pick out the valid points from all the straw, Assuming there are any valid points. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Matthew Brown wrote: Of course. The problem is people citing the decision as supporting an interpretation that says "blindly remove all such links all the time regardless of any other circumstances". A policy of *generally* removing such links is fine; a policy of removing them literally every single time is what the decision is being taken to mean.

On 4/24/07, Stephen Bain &lt;stephen.bain(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I have no idea who Daniel Brandt is, but he sure knows how to get attention and keep it directed at him forever. KP

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:52:13 -0700, Blu Aardvark &lt;jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: {{fact}} Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 27/04/07, Blu Aardvark &lt;jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As a banned user. Absolutely. - d.