Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 8

This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO (July 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per this ruling, is a good-faith edit linking to the outlawed site grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for this? Kamryn Matika 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. Kamryn Matika 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy. Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances, after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself here... you say it's not policy, but then you say it's enforceable anyway. It doesn't help things to suppress the link here that shows the specific instance being discussed, even though the link is to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to the so-called attack site. You also don't even address the point that the particular link in question was being used to source an article, and was relevant in that context, so the supposed attack-link ban (which you yourself agree is not actual policy) is not directly relevant... in fact, this instance is one of those "attempts to generalize the remedy" that you're supposedly against. If it's "not policy", then how is the fact that somebody was "warned" about it relevant? I can warn you that using the letter "e" in your postings makes you subject to getting blocked for it... does that mean that if you persist in using that letter you can properly be blocked? A "warning" not backed by valid policy should have no effect. By the way, there has never been a hearing considering the particular site in question for the particular link discussed here, although it's hard for anybody to check when even the link to the diff is being suppressed. *Dan T.* 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the banned site there is an enforceable remedy. Attempts to make that remedy into a policy are misguided as there needs to be a determination that a site is systematically engaged in destructive behavior before it is banned. Wikipedia has a number of legitimate critics. It would be grossly inappropriate to ban every critical website. Fred Bauder 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but websites that routinely post personally reveiling information about our editors should never be linked to nor advertised.--MONGO 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this just about does it for me. Kamryn Matika 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I misread the link you made. It is to Wikipedia Review, not to the banned drama site. I doubt a block was justified. Fred Bauder 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: We did not write a proposal about, or vote on, linking to ED. Rather, we voted on a general principle. The MONGO case was quite clear when we voted on it, and the vote was unanimous:

"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."[1]

Given the contents of WR, which has had dozens of threads and hundreds of posts devoted to attempts to "publish private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants", it is clear that the site meets the definition of "an attack site" as outlined here, that its pages "pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances", and that the block (after warning), was appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction. However, it is still a matter of degree. I post on Wikipedia Review. I would not even consider creating an ED account. Fred Bauder 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't condemn anyone for posting there, so long they are in fact "reviewing Wikipedia" and not trying to "out" anyone. But I have seen plenty of efforts by many contributors to that site who have tried to overtly ID the real life ID's of some of our contributors. That little to nothing is done to eliminate these postings demonstrates that they condone stalking and I find that to be unacceptable and thus I cannot see any reason why linking to any site that does this should be tolerated.--MONGO 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks should never be used as a penalty, but rather as a means to protect the encyclopaedia from harm. Linking to Wikipedia Review in an article, with an informative purpose, is not "damaging the encyclopaedia", and a block for this makes no sense. Sala Skan 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LaRouche editors again (July 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NathanDW (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) and Don't lose that number (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) (DLTN) are supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Both are single-issue accounts who add favorable material about LaRouche, remove anything negative, and add negative material about people they see as LaRouche's enemies. They've been warned several times about the ArbCom rulings and BLP, to no avail. NathanDW has been editing for 20 months and has 183 mainspace edits; DLTN since February 2007, with 351 mainspace edits.

I would like to block the accounts indefinitely for BLP violations at Chip Berlet, one of the articles covered by LaRouche2 (see Modification of LaRouche 2).

On July 20, an anon IP with no other edits, 24.117.110.173 (talk · contribs), added an anonymous geocities website as an external link. This is a personal website that contains actionable libel against Chip Berlet and myself, alleging some big conspiracy and repeating material about Berlet from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication, and about me from Wikipedia Review. I believe it is maintained by Nobs01 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), a user who was banned for BLP violations against Berlet.

Threeafterthree removed the link. DLTN restored it. I admin-deleted the edit on BLP grounds. [2] DLTN restored it again [3]; Tom Harrison removed it; NathanDW restored it. [4]

Both accounts have been warned about ArbCom and BLP violations before. I issued BLP warnings to NathanDW about his edits to Chip Berlet on November 20, 2006, March 4, 2007, with a final warning on March 5, 2007.

DLTN was blocked indefinitely on April 10, 2007 as a sockpuppet of Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy, after checkuser showed all three accounts edited from within the same narrow range. I unblocked DLTN because there was one indication of a difference between him and the others, which I won't repeat here, and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was unblocked on condition that he stick to the ArbCom rulings and make no BLP violations. [5] I had to warn him about BLP again on April 26, 2007. [6] WillBeback also recently appealed to DLTN for a change of behavior. [7]

I don't think this situation is ever going to change. The individuals behind the accounts are either clueless or malicious, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter which. Feedback from the committee about the proposed blocks would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The blocks seem justified. Fred Bauder 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. They look correct to me. If your own name hadn't been dragged into it, there'd be no question at all about the propriety, so it's right to ask. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I'll go ahead with the blocks. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Certain parties involved in this issue who argue that the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid does not belong on Wikipedia have created a whole slew of articles, Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, Allegations of French apartheid, and Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid (another one, Allegations of American apartheid, has already been deleted but is on DRV). In every deletion debate they ask for "consistent" treatment of all articles in the series, clearly referring to their objections to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In every deletion debate the same clique of users invades a subject area they had no prior interest in, and drags their old battles into a new venue.

This is a classic case of WP:POINT. I request the ArbCom condemn and stop this action. --Ideogram 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Allegations of Jordanian apartheid (created by User:Chesdovi, now deleted), Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (created by User:Bleh999, now deleted), and Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid (created by User:Theo F, now moved to another title). Anyway, Ideogram's statements are basically false. Most of these articles were created by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous case, and most of the people asking for "consistent" treatment on AfDs had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous case. In fact, most of the existing articles have easily survived AfDs because they are well-written, well-sourced, complied with all the policies and, frankly, were interesting - I encourage ArbCom members to read the remaining ones. You're probably going to read a lot of lengthy fulminations following this post from people who haven't been able to get articles they don't like deleted, filled with uncivil, bad faith, and basically untrue comments. Just recognize them for what they are; attempts to get the ArbCom to handle a content dispute, by deleting articles for them that they don't like. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As a mostly uninvolved user, I'd encourage ArbCom to re-examine the behavior of involved parties in light of the amnesty granted in the initial case. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid was closed by ChrisO, heavily involved in the apartheid dispute, which was poor judgement on his part. While his close was reasonable on policy grounds, it's predictably touched off a firestorm given his prior involvement. Similarly, a number of "Allegations of apartheid in..." articles have been created, maintained, and defended by a group of editors - and it is reasonable to believe that this is being done to make the point that the Israeli apartheid article should be deleted. Please see [8], where the tactic is laid out, and [9] [10] [11] [12], among others. It would seem that these articles are POV forks being created to make a point about the Israeli apartheid issue, and it's intensely disruptive and divisive. Given the scale of involvement and the length and depth of this conflict, I think it's most appropriately looked into by ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As predicted. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times, the person making this comment didn't create any of these articles, nor did he edit any of them, so his opinion about motivations or "tactics" are completely irrelevant. One cannot "lay out" something which one hasn't done and doesn't know anything about. Moreover, he didn't at all say that the articles were written in bad faith or for WP:POINT; on the contrary, he apparently believes they were written to uphold WP:NPOV. In any event, it's not a good idea to keep repeating obviously invented falsehoods as if they were admitted truths. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I appreciate your viewpoint. I don't know Sefringle (or, really, anyone else involved), and I don't edit these articles, so your perspective is probably more informed than mine. I'm just saying that, from a relatively external vantage point, it seems to me a reasonable conclusion that these articles are at least partly intended to drive home the fundamentally unencyclopedic nature of all "Allegations of apartheid..." articles. Which I agree with 100%, including the Israeli one. I just think that this particular approach, if I'm correct about it, is unecessarily disruptive and divisive, and I don't feel I (or any other individual admin) has the standing to address such a long-running, complex, and rancourous dispute - hence ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Jayjg) Let's name names, shall we? People from the previous case involved in this mess are Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), 6SJ7 (talk · contribs), and, surprise, Jayjg (talk · contribs). But it has already been recommended to me to create a new case, and I'm happy to. --Ideogram 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the one dozen "Allegations of apartheid" articles, how many were created by Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), 6SJ7 (talk · contribs), or me? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) As an "involved editor" (but not the creator of any of the articles listed above), I want to point out a few problems with this: 1: The above request seems to be in the wrong place, as it is not a request for clarification, but a new request that deals with a completely different set of facts from the previous arbitration; 2: As a result, it is in the wrong format, meaning among other things that it: 3: Does not list any parties nor state that anyone has been notified of the request; 4: It says nothing about prior dispute resolution (and in fact there probably has not been enough of that to support a "last resort" request for arbitration)... and probably most significant of all, 5: This is a content dispute. There has been some conduct, not mentioned by the requestor -- and not done by the people who have created the articles in question -- that might require attention by the Arb Comm in the future, but that would be a whole different subject from what is mentioned above. 6SJ7 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I had not seen Ideogram's comment immediately preceding mine, so some of my procedural points may become moot. But its still a content dispute. As for his apparent intention to make some accusation against me, all I can say is, Go ahead, make my day. All I've done is comment on a bunch of AfD's and a DRV, and some talk pages, and pointed out some questionable conduct here and there. I created none of the articles in question, and except for the original article in the "series", I don't think I've ever even edited any of them. 6SJ7 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Because Ideogram has now filed this as a new request for arbitration (see above, top of this page), this request for clarification is moot. I will leave this section here for 24 hours before deleting it in case editors who have commented in this section wish to move or refer to their comments here in responding to the new request above. Newyorkbrad 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert Prechter (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Robert Prechter case (decided about four months ago) indefinitely banned smallbones from articles related to Prechter. Smallbones’ equally aggressive hostility to Technical analysis was a key point in the outcome of the case, as is clear from this comment on the workshop page by an arbitrator.

“The problem is that you go a little too far. It is TA [technical analysis] that you maintain is pseudoscience, not just the Elliot Wave. The problem for me is determining if editing restrictions are necessary for you as a result of habitual POV editing. Fred Bauder 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)”

In the past couple of days, smallbones has reappeared on technical analysis, with inflammatory comments and edits. I am requesting clarification from the Committee on whether smallbones’ participation in the technical analysis article is in keeping with the remedy in the Prechter case. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As a third-party not involved in the original arbitration, I find Smallbones's edits to technical analysis be appropriate, modest, and consistent with Wikipedia rules. His only edits were to remove a passage that plainly violated WP:SYN/WP:NOR and to reinsert (once) a dispute tag that Rgfolsom inappropriately deleted through reversions on three occasions in 24 hours. The only POV-pusher here is Rgfolsom, who has WP:OWN issues with this article. THF 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Committee members may wish to assess the comment from THF in light of recent examples of incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith. --Rgfolsom 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to conclude that the "topic ban" would not apply to the technical analysis article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I will respectfully ask you and other administrators to please look again at the most recent activity on the Technical analysis article and talk page. smallbones has alleged a conflict of interest where none exists, erroneously argued on behalf of other editors, claimed a non-existent consensus, and then reverted edits that were in place just as a true consensus appeared at hand.

The previous arbitration took more than three months to decide. It would be tedious indeed for the Committee to go though it again regarding the same behavior, the same editor, and a very similar article. Thanks for your consideration.--Rgfolsom 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to try to speak on behalf of the rest of the committee, I think you'll find that the committee will move quickly if there is genuine evidence that the problem is unabated but has merely moved to another page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As of a few hours ago, I can offer genuine evidence that the problem is somewhat beyond unabated. Smallbones solicited a vote on THF’s talk page, in an AfD that smallbones himself is banned from. Smallbones had no doubt that this other editor would serve as his proxy (see THF's comment above), and that is indeed what happened. Thanks for your time and attention.--Rgfolsom 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I note for the benefit of the committee that THF took it upon himself to inform a number of participants in AFD1 that AFD2 was underway. I reviewed those notes earlier this morning, and concluded that THF informed several respected editors on both sides of the AFD1 discussion, and did not engage in votestacking. GRBerry 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paranormal, Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The arbitration committee has closed the above case. It includes many principles, including Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing. This principle states, in part, that "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Psychic is a particularly troublesome word in that its meaning is not well agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of psychic is that "having a psychical rather than a physical or physiological origin". The OED definition does not equivocate; in its definition, someone termed a psychic must actually possess such abilities. It is straightforward in saying that a psychic's abilities do not have a physical or physiological origin. In contrast, Wikipedia's definition of "psychic" equivocates, suggesting that a psychic is simply "thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena" (emphasis mine).

I believe that this principle, as it regards the term 'psychic', is very sensitive to the meaning of "psychic" that one is familiar with. For example, if the phrase "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" is read with the Wikipedia definition ("thought to have these abilities"), then it seems reasonable that no further framing may be needed. However, given that there are other definitions, including those from authoritative sources like the OED, this phrasing could prove problematic. Read with the OED definition in mind, "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" implies that Jeane Dixon actually, as opposed to "is thought to", possesses abilities that are, in fact, not of a "physical or physiological origin". In this case, it strikes me that additional framing would be acceptable - otherwise, we are claiming that she actually has such powers, and that such powers do not come from the physical world - a tall statement for an introductory paragraph.

With the tension between alternate definitions from reputable sources in mind, is there any clarification that can be offered, either for the principle in general, or for the principle as it pertains specifically to the ter"m "psychic"?

Thanks, Ante lan ^talk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), which I consider to be highly authoritative and perhaps more attuned to current usage than the OED, offers this relevant definition: "2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." I believe that this concurs with the Wikipedia usage. The OED definition you cite appears to correspond to the "1 psychic" definition in M-W, which is a usage more philosophical than paranormal. I do not have an OED at hand to review any other definitions it may offer, though I am confident that the OED has many others beyond the one you identify. I would conclude that the Wikipedia usage is not unique or unsupported. Finally, since the Wikipedia article clarifies our intended usage, I believe that readers both casual and astute will understand that the use of the term does not imply the presence of actual psychic abilities confirmed by the scientific method. In conclusion, the decision is sound as it stands. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your finding in M-W is germane to, and indeed buttresses, my point, which is that reputable (even authoritative) sources offer different interpretations of psychic. In some instances, "psychic" is held to mean someone who has said powers; in others, it is held to mean someone who is said to have said powers. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to believe that an educated, intelligent reader of Wikipedia could come in with either prior definition in mind. Such a literate, conversant person would not think that they would have to click on "psychic" to learn which definition Wikipedia is using, since they would, reasonably, already believe that "psychic" denotes (depending on previous exposure to the word) either people who (1) do have, or (2) are simply said to have, powers.

I'm not simply offering hypotheticals; other important publications such as the New York Times and the United States Department of Justice qualify the term "psychic":

"Jeane Dixon, the astrologer and self-described psychic who gained fame by apparently predicting President John F. Kennedy's death, died on Saturday in Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington." [13]
" According to previous in-court statements, Marks, a self-proclaimed psychic and fortune teller, agreed that she was responsible for bilking over two (2) million dollars from numerous elderly and otherwise vulnerable victims from 1994 through 2002." [14]

Nevertheless, as you and I have both noted, the term is not always used in this way; it is also used in the "is said to have" way. So, in contrast to your conclusion, it strikes me that both casual and astute readers will interpret all articles invoking the term "psychic" differently, based on their prior experience with this term. Ante lan ^talk 08:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the ambiguity of the term "Psychic" and the conflicting definitions of the word, we are left with only a few solutions to the problem. 1. We require articles about people who claim to have psychic powers state that the individuals are "purported psychics". 2. We change the Psychic article to reflect Wikipedia's accepted definition of the term "Psychic". 3. We avoid using the term "psychic" in such articles and only state that the individuals "claim paranormal abilities" and then elaborate on which abilities they claim to have. If we stick with the definition of "psychic" as someone who claims paranormal powers opposed to someone who indeed has the powers then the Psychic article must reflect that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic that we are limited to the three choices you outline. I believe that the decision is clear as it stands regarding the use of the term. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter. I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all we needed to know. All that remains is to update Wikipedia's psychic article to ensure compliance with your operative definition. Thanks for the clarification. Ante lan ^talk 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a review. I hope it's not too late to comment. One of the most notable debunkers out there, James Randi, defines psychic as "an adjective, describ[ing] a variety of supernatural forces, events, or powers." Psychics (noun), he defines as "designat[ing] a person said to be able to call upon any of many psychic forces."[15] Randi is about as skeptical as it gets, so there's really no reason to add unnecessary qualifiers at Wikipedia either. Notice there's no "alleged", "purported", "claimed" or other WP:WTA in these definitions, only "said to" in relation to psychics (n), which is of course compatible with WP:WTA. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. We could define "psychic" as "having powers," and as long as we make very clear in the article that there is significant controversy about whether these powers are real, then we're OK. That is because a definition "a psychic has powers" coupled with "these powers may not exist," gives the reader this definition:

"a psychic is someone with powers, but those powers may not exist."

In other words, real psychics may not exist. So as long as we include skepticism in the articles, the issue of the first definition of psychic is not relevant. In the end what the reader comes out with is the necessary nuance, an understanding of the controversy.

We aren't a dictionary here. We don't have to have everything in one sentence. That need seems to be why dictionaries sometimes stoop to either 1) no controversy or 2) definitions which are technically inaccurate, something like "a psychic is someone with supposed paranormal powers," which would rule out psychics who didn't know they were psychic, and begs the question of what a "supposed paranormal power" is.

Anyway, Wikipedia can support a full understanding of such terms which includes skepticism without resorting to one-sentence definitions, or things like "purported," "supposed," and "self-described." This isn't an argument for defining "psychic" in a particular way, but rather for explaining the controversy rather than focusing on a single sentence like a dictionary- and giving the reader some credit for being able to fully understand the usage of a controversial term. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

These terms clearly exist, from where I stand this simple fact overrides any and all questions about whether or not the phenomona/ability/whatever actually exists in reality. The arbcom ruling correctly reflects this and therefore should be kept. For example, a psychic is a cultural label applied to somebody, it is not a judgment of science or law on their possession of actual psychic powers, or a judgment on the existence of said powers in the real world. - perfectblue 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

These edits [16] [17] read as an appeal to authority as one says "Per Arbitrator UninvitedCompany" and the other says "This is literally per the ArbCom". Are these edits actually per UninvitedCompany and meant to be "the" definition we are supposed to use? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for another opinion--a psychic is someone who has paranormal powers, and this would extend to somebody who think he has such powers. A person who knows perfectly well that he does not have such powers but pretends to have them is a pretended psychic--most stage magicians would come under such a heading. As the actual existence of such powers is hard to demonstrate, I would accept anyone who claims to actually have them as a psychic. I do not think this the least confusing. To those who do not believe in the existence of such powers, it would be follow that such a person is either self-deluded or being deliberately deceptive--since is it almost impossible to tell the difference, most skeptics would I think regard the two classes as essentially equivalent--especially given that someone who honestly believes himself to to have such powers--or who might even have them in reality-- might nonetheless deceive to make them appear more impressive. To a skeptic, calling someone a psychic is a negative criticism. To a believer, it's a compliment. Thus I would think it a neutral term, and it is satisfying to have at least one neutral term in this subject. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

His version: ""2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces."" My version: "A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." The ArbCom made content-related findings; it is reasonable that our viewers should be exposed to their operative definition of psychic upon visiting the article. To me, it was unclear what definition of "psychic" Wikipedia was operating under. TheUninvitedCo clarified. Given this introduction to the article, I concur that "psychic" is a sufficiently descriptive term, not requiring any framing such as "alleged", "purported", "self-described", etc. Ante lan ^talk 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We follow the ArbCom decision (not necessarily what an arbitrator says), but the ArbCom did not rule on the definition of "psychic." What Antelan has edit warred to insert in the Psychic article is not accurate, and merely uses other weasely words. In place of things like "supposed" and "self-described," he has put in "Apparently." He asked DGG for another opinion, and DGG did not agree with him. All Antelan is doing is POV pushing and going against consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I find myself asking you to refrain from personal attacks with an alarming frequency, and I will do so again now. TheUninvitedCo used the term "apparently". DGG's opinion is well-reasoned and invaluable. In the request for clarification, I presented two reasonable interpretations of "psychic", and now I know which one is to be used on Wikipedia. Given the clarification and the updated "psychic" definition, it is perfectly reasonable that qualifiers are unnecessary before "psychic", but before this clarification it was unclear. Ante lan ^talk 22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In reading the above, it appears that TheUninvitedCo said that using "apparently" is fine, but that using no qualifier is fine as well, and that there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with the wording before-hand. I'm only posting this here so that TheUninvitedCo can clarify for him/herself, but shouldn't this be a consensus thing reached on the talk page? If both are fine, then editors can choose which they prefer, and it's not really "per TheUninvitedCo". Let's leave the arbitrators out of it and work it out on the talk page. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, this was one of the major content-related decisions of the ArbCom, which is why I asked for clarification here. If I correctly understood TheUninvitedCo, the conclusion was that "apparently" is fine in fleshing out the meaning of psychic in the psychic article, and then we don't need to qualify the term "psychic" with apparently/purportedly/etc. elsewhere since the full meaning will then already be contained within Wikipedia's understanding of the term. (If this is not correct, I would very much appreciate correction and clarification from an Arbitrator.) Ante lan ^talk 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to Antelan: gather the diffs all my "personal attacks" and take them to an admin.

The Uninvited Co said specifically he saw nothing wrong with the current article.

However, an Arbitrator's power is in his writing of and votes on decisions, not a dictatorial power. So however right or wrong UnivitedCo is, we can't just say "thus saith The Uninvited Co" and have that be that.

The ArbCom decision ruled against the need for qualifiers, as long as an article is framed- and framing includes that skepticism is included in articles used to frame. That was already the case with Psychic.

Antelan's edits were POV pushing of the kind which occurred on a regular basis before the ArbCom decision. They were also non consensual controversial edits, and he edit warred to keep them in- again, behavior just like what we had to deal with before the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me state it a bit simpler. If we're going to remove words such as "Purported" or "alleged" then we need to replace them with "claims to have" or "says he/she has" etc. If we don't use words such as "claims to have" then if we refer to any individual as "psychic" we need to make the Psychic article reflect the definition being used, I.E. "A person who claims powers" opposed to "A person who has powers". Very simple. The latter might be a bit confusing for most people who recgonize the term "psychic" as someone who HAS powers, but if that's how it must be.. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Stop with the "personal attacks". Just don't use that word anymore. If someone attacks you, ignore it. Discussing "purported" (no pun intended) personal attacks only distracts us from this current discussion about clarification on the RFA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, in one case. If we say "So-and-so has psychic powers" then that's POV. So we say, "So-and-so claims to/is purported to have psychic powers."

But if we say "So-and-so is a psychic" then that is NPOV, because in the psychic article it makes quite clear that there is controversy. Thus, the word "psychic" already contains the controversy. That is to say, "psychic" has the same meaning as "purported psychic-" it contains skepticism within it.

However, the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers. That is the definition, and added to that is the controversy. It is subtle, but it is important. A psychic has powers, AND those powers may not truly exist in the real world. This is what "psychic" means.

BUT, a "psychic" is NOT someone who merely "claims to have powers."

The current Psychic article does contain controversy, in the body and in the lead. Thus, it is NPOV and we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to go with the definition of Psychic as someone who "purportedly has psychic powers" and refer to people like Sylvia Browne as "Psychics" opposed to "Purported psychics" then we need to make VERY clear in the Psychic article that not only is there controversy about the existence of psychic powers, but that the very definition of "psychic" itself is someone who purports to have such powers and not someone who does indeed have such powers.

Defining psychic as someone who has powers would mean that anyone who is described as psychic has those powers, logically. If "Psychic" is defined as an individual who HAS powers and if we describe Sylvia Browne as a psychic then she must have powers. The fact that controversy exists disputing the existence of such powers doesn't negate the fact that we're claiming a "Psychic" is someone with those paranormal powers and Sylvia Browne is a Psychic, thus Sylvia Browne has those paranormal powers. Let me put it this way; If Psychic=Someone with said powers" then describing someone as a psychic would logically mean affirming they have said powers. Regardless of any criticism or controversy about the existence of such powers.

We can't define "Psychic" as "someone who HAS said powers" if we're going to refer to various individuals as psychics because whether they are psychic or not is disputed. If we're going to refer to them as actual psychics then we need to define the word "Psychic" as someone who claims to have such powers but doesn't necessarily have them. Which of course must be made very clear in the Psychic article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The words "said to" and "say" are greenlighted by WP:WTA, purported is redlighted. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I admit it's a subtle point. But here's an example. A little green man from Mars is............... a little green man from Mars. As it happens, there is controversy over whether such exist.

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

It's subtle, but it is the ArbCom decision. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you claimed to be a "Green Martian" and gained substantial notoriety and a Wikipedia article developed about you then it would be an article whos name was your name. Let's say "Martin Phi", for an example. The article would be called "Martin Phi" and would say that "Martin Phi CLAIMS to be a green Martian" not "Martian Phi IS a green Martian". There's nothing subtle about it, it's simply stating something as a fact which isn't necessarily a fact. If "Psychic" is defined as someone who HAS said powers and we call someone a "Psychic" then we are affirming they have said powers. That's basic logic. A=Psychic powers, B =Psychic. If B is defined as having A then someone who is referred to as B is affirmed to have A by the one doing the referring. Your logic seems to be "B=A, If B then not necessarily A". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't understand what I wrote, but I don't think I can make it much clearer.

A = B and B = (C + D).

A = name B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

Get it? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's very unclear. What you wrote would say, if translated, "Psychic equals Psychic and Psychic equals powers plus controversy". That doesn't really make any sense at all. "A" is defined as "name", but name of what? The term? The term is "Psychic" so "A=B" is redundant. "B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers. Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A = B

B = (C + D).

A = Sylvia Browne (example) B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

"B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers." Correct.

Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Incorrect.

We qualify if we say someone has psychic powers. We don't qualify if we say someone is a psychic, because we're linking to the "psychic" article, and that includes the controversy over whether there are any real psychics.

Thus as I said before,

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green Martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

Whether my interpretation is correct or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that we don't have to use qualifiers as long as the articles which define our terms include the controversy. That's what the ArbCom said.

Here's what the Arbs said, and there really isn't any getting around it:

"It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

and

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."

Which I interpret to mean that a cultural artifact such as "psychic" contains within it the controversy and thus does not need to be qualified. This works so long as the Psychic article contains a description of the controversy. It does not require, however, that we define the meaning of the word "psychic" equivocally- it only means we should inform the reader about the controversy. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You say A = Sylvia Browne and B = psychic and then say "A = B" and then you say we're not affirming that the individual in question has psychic powers, when you clearly state that "A=B" and "B=psychic" and Psychic=someone with powers? You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that both "Psychic" is someone with powers and isn't someone with powers. The Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." This would mean that the Psychic article should NOT say that a psychic is someone who has definite psychic abilities but someone who claims to have such abilities. If that's the definition we're going with. We wouldn't call a crazy guy who claimed he was from mars a "Green Martian" anymore than we would claim some crazy guy who thinks he is Jesus "God" or "Messiah". We would refer to them as their names, whatever they may be. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Psychic article is framed with words like paranormal and ESP, such that people know that the existence of psychic powers is controversial. If you don't accept anything else I've said, then that should be enough. No one is going to get the impression that everyone believes that the powers really exist. Calling a person a "psychic" will never tell anyone that the powers indicated by the word are necessarily real. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't making it clear that controversy exists, it's obvious that controversy exists. The point is that wikipedia should make it clear that Psychic powers themselves might not exist. The only way to do this was outlined by me above. Stating that "Psychic=Psychic powers" and simply stating that controversy exists and people doubt psychics doesn't take away the problem of calling someone a psychic when we're using that definition. You seem to be saying that defining a Psychic as someone who definitely has psychic powers and labeling various people psychic is acceptable as long as we state that controversy exists about psychics. This doesn't solve the problem. Simply stating that a controversy exists doesn't take away from the problem that you're claiming so and so is a psychic and that a psychic is someone with powers. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A unicorn is a "legendary creature" (i.e. mythological). Bigfoot is a figure in "North American folklore". A ufo is "any real of apparently flying object which cannot be identified by the observer". These have straightforward introductions which frame their articles. Martinphi, you have said, both, "a psychic is someone with powers" but that this is controversial, and "we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist". How do you expect us to understand what you are thinking when you don't even offer us a coherent view of the topic in question? I and others have offered opinions, which you have struck down without offering a straightforward alternative. In your view, and in simple, encyclopedic, affirmative terms (i.e., "a psychic is X" instead of "a psychic is not Y") what is a psychic? Ante lan ^talk 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is that someone please inform me if a request for review is granted so I can comment. I think the Randi reference says it all, but I can provide other references as well. Otherwise this is talk page stuff to be worked out sans- arbitration. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification on ED (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not an ED troll, but an interesting question was raised at a recent DRV (see bottom) for it. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, it was ruled that ED links and material is banned from Wikipedia. However, it was questioned in the DRV that even if reliable sources that established notability were found, would it come in conflict with the ArbCom ruling in that case? Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The ED article itself has clearly posed internal problems for us. I think the turning point for me would be this: Are there sufficient reliable sources about ED which demonstrate that ED so clearly inside our inclusion guidelines that our project would be incomplete without it? If that were the case, I myself would support an amendment to the MONGO decision to permit an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Well, I can't see much more reason to edit this website if the arbitrators are going to support the recreation of an article about that website which has attacked a number of our contributors in ways that simply cannot be put into words. Oddly enough, the article on me there is hardly one of the worst.--MONGO 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax. We have lots of articles about things, people, and organizations we don't like, and your concern is hypothetical since there aren't reliable sources covering ED. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In my own opinion, the ArbCom way overstepped its proper bounds in imposing a flat and absolute link ban, and this has had ongoing pernicious consequences; one of them has been to turn me from a strong supporter of Wikipedia to somebody who's largely disillusioned and disgruntled, because of my scuffles over this silly policy. Also, labeling people "trolls" for disagreeing with a clique here is hardly productive. *Dan T.* 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't see us linking pages to uncyclopedia all the time. Having links to ED in individual pages outside of the ED article (if it is re-created mind you) is pointless. Part of the reason for the ban is the numerous amounts of attack pages on the site, how would you feel if someone posted the link to a page blatantly attacking you on your userspace (talk included). Regarding the "trolls", in a nutshell, what they are doing is trolling, just not on-wiki. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd find it funny, actually... a while back when I was on both Daniel Brandt's Hivemind and Jeff Merkey's Merkeylaw, with some silly attacks on me in both places, I actually linked to them on my own userpage to laugh at them, something that wouldn't be permitted these days under the silly "no links to attack sites" policy. *Dan T.* 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To each their own then. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No attack sites was rejected. Or at least the form I have seen was - people seem to be thinking it IS actually policy though! Viridae ^Talk 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article on Daniel Brandt can be a redirect, then surely anything ED-related can be a redirect also. What he's done carries far more clout and legitimacy than what they've done. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming of User:COFS (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As per the proposed remedies on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, the user has requested renaming prior to the completion of the case. Do you want us to do it now or hold off until the case is closed, or case closed and any ban finished? Secretlondon 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it done now rather than waiting. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nothing gained by waiting.

James F. (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zen-master (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The year-long ban on Zen-master (talk · contribs) has recently expired. IIRC, one of the actions that resulted in his ban was his perennial harping (and creating multiple Policy Proposals) against using the term "conspiracy theory" in articles. It took him less than a week to drop back into his old behavior, as evidenced on this "new" proposal (now userfied), canvassing, spamming edit warring, and pointless debate. Frankly I find it hard to find any edits in his contribs log that do not relate to his POV pushing. I suggest that his presence is not only a net negative, but an overall negative to the project. >Radiant< 13:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: The prior decision involving this user is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some users are trying to ban me because of what I discuss on discussion pages, is that really a bannable offense? Resubmitting a proposal after 2 years have elapsed is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policies as far as I know. Also note some editors are trying to ban me because I discovered that the race and intelligence article utilizes a racism inducing method of presentation, see the scientific racism article. If you think the phrase "conspriacy theory" is neutral feel free to disagree with me, but please don't try to ban me just because I don't think it's neutral. zen master T 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the one-year ban was converted into an indefinite block on August 27, 2006 by user:Samuel Blanning on account of "evasion via sockpuppetry indicates no inclination to serve ban." See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zen-master. On August 8, 2007 user:Zscout370 unblocked the account, "giving him another chance". In a related action, this user's account on Wiktionary was blocked due to POV pushing in the "conspiracy theory" entry.[18] Among other things he'd been using the Wiktionary definition, that he'd written, to support his assertions about its use on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was blocked on wiktionary allegedly for my behavior on Wikipedia according to the admin that blocked me on Wiktionary, Connel MacKenzie, who has yet to list and explain how any wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses. I'd also like someone to explain how any of my Wikipedia edits, especially me recent edits, could be considered blockable offenses? Why aren't any users complaining about me linking to any of my edits? Answer: because none violate policy. Just because a coordinated group of users don't like my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory title neutrality proposal doesn't mean you should let them block me over it. zen master T 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you were blocked for sending a rude email to Colin (a very senior admin over there)Blueboar 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, my email to his wiktionary account had the same tone as my post to his Wikipedia discussion page here. And I only emailed him after he had already blocked me indefinitely. I've pasted below my posts to his Wikipedia discussion page:

Why did you block my Wiktionary account?

Hello Connel MacKenzie, please list and explain here what wiktionary edits for "Hollow are the Ori" are in any way blockable offenses? Why did you make the block indefinite?

If there are any other wiktionary.com admins reading this page please look into this case. zen master T 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spreading falsehoods that my email to you regarding your unjustified block of my wiktionary account had a bad tone. The tone of my email to you was the same as my tone is here. I repeat my request for you to list and explain here how any of my wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses? zen master T 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't any of the editors complaining against me listing any recent Wikipedia edits of mine that could be considered blockable offenses? Why is there a group of coordinated users conspiring against me and my proposals? I repeat my request for someone to list and explain how any of my Wikipedia edits, especially recent ones, are blockable offenses? Recently all I've been doing is pretty much discussion on discussion pages, how is that a blockable offense? zen master T 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's original message links to specific problems with your edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits list anything that violates policy, normal wikipedia edits. And please link to specific edits rather than just article history. And how is debate on a proposal page a blockable offense? It's a very sad state of affairs if someone can be blocked for alleging that a phrase used in article titles isn't neutral. Feel free to disagree with me but don't block me because we disagree. zen master T 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia is a legitimate cause for a block. Your edit warring at 9/11 Truth Movement was not productive, and may have violated WP:3RR, or at least come very close to doing so. You've been blocked ten times for 3RR violations previously. You edit-warred before your ban and you don't seem to have changed your behavior. Spamming and canvassing are also disruptive. Pointless debate is not productive either. Can you explain why you asked for your block to be overturned and what productive edits you've made since your return? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to try to make a case for why I should be blocked, not the other way around. zen master T 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Zen-master's behavior is the same as it was before his ban: Edit-warring, and trying to ban the phrase "conspiracy theory" from article titles. Zscout370 unblocked to give him another chance, and Zen-master has chosen not to take it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wrongfully banned the first time around and it looks like I will be wrongfully banned again. I followed wikipedia policy in making my proposal that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral enough for use in article titles, it's a very sad state of affairs if making an unpopular proposal can get someone banned. zen master T 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about agreeing to stay away from any page (in any namespace) dealing with conspiracy theories? I don't think a complete ban would be necessary if these pages were voluntarily avoided. Chaz ^Beckett 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about discussion pages? I actually prefer to have the entire arbitration committee fully review this case and re-open the original case since it was and is wrong. zen master T 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, discussion pages seem to be a big part of the problem. I personally don't believe you're going to accomplish much by attempting to re-open the case, but it's your choice on how to proceed. Chaz ^Beckett 02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So someone can be banned for discussion on discussion pages? This is ludicrous. The principle of neutral presentation should prevent the use of language such as "conspiracy theory" that is ambiguous, discrediting and deceiving at a subtle unconscious level. No one has made a case as to how any specific recent edits of mine are blockable offenses. zen master T 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may cite Kosebamse's law, "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." >Radiant< 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there is a social standard against discussion on discussion pages? That is ridiculous. Just because you "strongly disagree" with my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory title neutrality proposal doesn't mean that's a blockable offense. zen master T 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[19] was my reasoning for unblocking the account. Sorry if I cannot provide more details, since I don't keep IRC logs. Whatever actions the ArbCom or other decisions make, I will not oppose them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When is the full arbitration committee going to start reviewing this case and re-open the original arbitration case? zen master T 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely (re)blocked Zen-master. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And honestly, unless he promises to reform, I don't see any reason to overturn that at any point in the future. Some users (unfortunately) are lost causes. I think he is one of them. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Five arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible:

The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed.

In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation?

No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article).

Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities.

Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power.

Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results.

This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent."

Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics).

A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate."[20] Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood.

For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject. This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.

Thank you, Ante lan ^talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Heaven, Soul, and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on Energy (spirituality) but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like Prana. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.

So to state it the way I have at other times that the meaning of the word "psychic" is "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated- powers and doubt about thier reality. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it your consideration. Ante lan ^talk 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan's was the nicest. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's true -it was very well done- and UninvitedCompany said "still," which must have been referring to his having not bought it before either. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone is a psychic is the equivalent of labeling them a faker. It is not necessary to say they are a faker so long as they are labeled as a "psychic". Fred Bauder 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The pseudoscience category precedent (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The pseudoscience RFAr contained some rulings related to the use of Category:Pseudoscience (specifically, principles 15, 16, and 17) that are being used in the arguments in a CFD for Category:Denialism. There are obvious similarities between denialism and pseudoscience, e.g. both present arguments that run contrary to what is widely accepted. However denialism is arguably a more strongly pejorative term and is less well-defined (to the extent that no one has identified any dictionary that defines it). While Timecube may serve as "obvious pseudoscience" deciding what is "obvious denialism" (aside from say Holocaust denial) would be difficult and there isn't exactly a community of experts to turn to for deciding what is or isn't denialism.

Given that a substantial fraction of the argument at this CFD is based on drawing parallels to Category:Pseudoscience, I think it might be helpful if one or more of you would express an opinion on whether or not you find those parallels compelling in this instance. Dragons flight 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attacks (August 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many arbitration cases have endorsed the principle that making personal attacks on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Is the introduction of off-wiki statements largely unrelated to Wikipedia or its editors at a request for adminship for the apparent purpose of disparaging the candidate's moral character, as occurred at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot#Q15, considered to be a personal attack? If so, what remedies, if any, are available when it is reasonably believed that a request for adminship failed as a direct result of the presentation of such personal attacks therein, and off-wiki canvassing for oppose votes containing repetitions of such personal attacks? John254 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bmedley Sutter, there is information on Wikipedia Review strongly suggestive that he received that negative information from the banned user Fairness and Accuracy for All. I have already blocked and warned Bmedley Sutter for another post that was a proxy edit for FAAFA and for taunting Crockspot. I did not know at the time about the RfA issue. If Bmedley Sutter continues to post content at the request of FAAFA he can be banned for a year under the prior case, and I will also extend FAAFA's block, which I forgot to do before. Any Admin who wants to issue a longer block or ban against Bmedley can do so; if no other admin unblocks, it becomes a community ban unless he appeals.

Regarding the RfA, contact the bureaucrats and ask them to reconsider, pointing out that WR was used to canvass against it. I do not believe it is within ArbCom's jurisdiction to overturn a closed RfA and declare a winner, you'll have to talk to the bureaucrats. Thatcher131 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful that the candidate's comments were brought to light, and apart from whatever offenses Bmedley Sutter has committed, I thank him for linking to them. Editors' off-wiki behavior is often used when evaluating their conduct, and I see no reason why simply pointing out what the candidate has said can be construed as a personal attack. The only reason this is being suggested is because the candidate's statements were so vile. After the off-wiki comments were brought to light, the community consensus rapidly turned (see graph at right) and I would be appalled if a bureaucrat decided to ignore this obvious will of the community. ←Ben^B4 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. If there is serious reason to question a candidate's moral character, we should be thanking the people who introduce such evidence. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Would a more succinct expression be "Any stick will do to beat a dog?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A more succinct expression unfortunately is that the community, upon learning that the user in question had used racist and homophobic epithets, decided that the user in question was not fit for a position of leadership on the website. The RFA more than anything is a statement for better or worse on what the current users of this website consider to be acceptable social behavior by potential administrators. It not within ArbCom's purview nor of any Steward or Beurocrat to supercede the decision of the userbase in a matter like this. Having "conservative" administrators, or as you put it on the RFA talk page, (paraphrasing) "not promoting someone to admin because they don't share your social justice is a problem" isn't in fact a problem. If the community doesn't trust a user, so be it. They don't need to be an admin.

As for whether Crockspot's inappropriate behavior on the Conservative Underground was admissible evidence for RFA, why not? Are not such things admissible evidence for matters such as RFAR? 88.73.104.70 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're not. ArbCom does not consider off-wiki behavior unless it relates directly to disruptive behavior on-wiki. Someone who has a blog attacking X will not be sanctioned here if their behavior here is generally good. Someone who runs a web site attacking X who edit wars and is uncivil with respect to X-related articles is likely to be sanctioned, but would be anyway based on behavior. RfA voters can have their own standards, of course, but that has generally been ArbCom's position. Thatcher131 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but there's also a difference in what's being judged; Arbcom's charter is to review abuse cases or conflicts on-wiki. Requests for Adminship is looking at whether we (the community) trust user X with the mop and a few potentially moderately dangerous permissions bits. Someone who's behaved well on-wiki but In Real Life has deeply held fringe opinions or beliefs which most may find offensive or troubling may not be someone we want to mop. Past good on-wiki behavior by someone with past bad off-wiki behavior is still potentially a real problem.

There's a legitimate serious policy problem here, a collision between on-wiki user privacy standards (including encouraged use of pseudonyms, etc) and the rest of the world. I find myself troubled by the implications in both directions. And glad again that I don't bother to hide my identity here at all (not that this helps resolve the policy question raised...). Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While I do not support posting on a banned users behalf, the question of if an admin is racist or homophobic is in fact directly linked to if they can be trusted to be impartial. While I do not particularly approve of the source, the information was obviously seen as valuable to those who were "support" and changed to "oppose." --SevenOfDiamonds 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So when the RfA fails and Bmedley posts "Crockspots, this is a message from an "old friend". He says: (quote) " PWNED ! LOL ! REMEMBER ANDY ! " " to Crockspot's talk page, that's ok too? Thatcher131 11:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is under my post, as I was addressing the issue of the RfA and the contents of a racist nature posted there, admittedly by Crockspot on the CU forum. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, acting in an obnoxious, gloating manner rubbing somebody's defeat in their face is not a good idea regardless of the merits or demerits of either side in the controversy. This is entirely independent of the issue of what facts ought to be brought up during the debate itself, however. *Dan T.* 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the question is, what would have happened if the question had been added by a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of FAAFA. Obvious indef block based on using sockpuppets to evade his ArbCom-imposed one-year ban. But instead he fed the information to another editor (proxy editor or meat puppet) who posted it. What should happen to the proxy editor? Thatcher131 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More worrysome and general problem: What do we do when a well known admin or longtime user in good standing comes across off-wiki information of equal import to a pending Request for Adminship, and posts it in a more polite manner to the RFA page?

It's easy to say "This was FAAFA using a proxy, just deal with that", but the policy issue of the information itself... yuck. Georgewilliamherbert 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written Wikipedia:Make personal attacks at requests for adminship as a satirical critique of the present trend of making personal attacks against RFA candidates. John254 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy (September 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      - Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

- Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instantnood3 (September 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.
Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.
Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat

You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.

One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm nowhere near a neutral party here (too many underlying reasons), but I second what NYB says. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BADSITES / NPA in articles (September 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In #BADSITES above, Mackensen writes, "We're not being asked to write policy; we're being asked to clarify an earlier ruling," to which FloNight responds, "We do not need a new case to make this point," and James F. adds, "the MONGO decision definitely needs re-working." Would it be more appropriate to ask for a clarification here? If so, I so ask the committee to clarify the extent to which WP:NPA applies to articles. ←Ben^B4 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a try:

The No Personal Attacks policy, as it clearly states throughout the page, applies to comments, not to articles.

I'm trying to be succinct to avoid confusion, but I could expand it:

The No Personal Attacks policy applies to comments. It cannot be applied to articles as they are not appropriate venues for comment on Wikipedia editors qua editors. External sites and their appropriateness for articles are covered under the Sourcing and Referencing policies.

Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. AFAIK we are supposed to link only to reliable sources (or, at least, I only link to RS), which should preclude Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review. These hives of scum and villainy are hardly reliable sources in any sense of the word: it's hard to think of a valid reason for linking to them in the first place. Even in cases of "Wikipedia Review proves that X really did say Y", if Wikipedia Review is your only source for this, chances are that nobody cares anyway. Moreschi ^Talk 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Navel-gazing and lotus-eating is inappropriate for encyclopædia articles.

James F. (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA is about Conduct, not about Content. Something applied to user behavior has nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Judge the article on its own bad quality or lack of value, don't try to apply policies or guidelines never intending to be used for article purposes. bastique 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like this. Much clearer than what I wrote. :-)

James F. (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, new suggestion from David G., plus some tidying:

WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behaviour have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Judge articles strictly on their content in a disinterested editorial manner; don't try to apply community policies or guidelines not intended for article policies, don't consider one's own opinions of or experiences with the subject of an article.

Input still requested. :-) Will harangue some interested parties.

James F. (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the interested parties will say that they'll provide their input in the context of the new case. Newyorkbrad 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The proof will be in the pudding. If ArbCom does not open a case to consider edit warring by various parties on various articles, and only publishes this clarification, will it stop the edit warring? You may want to look at recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. The idea that applying NPA and attack site link removal to article space is "beyond absurd" doesn't seem to have percolated through to the disputants there. Or at Overstock.com either, where the current state of the article is to have obfuscated the name and removed all links to the site that forms a major part of the article, in the name of NPA. Thatcher131 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that "beyond absurd" hasn't percolated down to the little people yet, it's that arguments by assertion aren't very persuasive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Arbcom, it is likely that never once did it occur to them that anyone would take this specific principle (not even a remedy), reinterpret it, stick it in a policy applying to editorial behaviour, and then apply it to article content. Risker 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The links in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO were posted in mainspace. They were links to ED in the article on ED, presumably as critically necessary for NPOV there as at Judd Bagley. It seems a bit thin to say now that nobody thought this would be taken to apply to article content when the original ruling applied to article content. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article has long since been deleted, but I will certainly take your word for it, Tom. You may well be right that Arbcom was thinking in the particular case of ED that it would apply to article space. At the same time, the notability of the subject was hardly on the same line as Michael Moore, where links to his home page were removed because they were an "attack site." Deleting the ED article was not particularly unreasonable, with or without the links present. I can't imagine developing consensus to delete the Michael Moore article, and the lack of a link to his website would indeed be poor editorial judgment. Risker 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And you think deciding that "all parties erred, none are chastised" in two months' time will fix that problem?

James F. (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Let's see what happens now. Thatcher131 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Question though, would linking to an attack site possibly considered to be a BLP vio? Kwsn(Ni!) 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question - recent changes to the WP:BLP policy suggest that anything relating to a living person on any page anywhere in the encyclopedia that could possibly be construed as a BLP violation may be removed at any time. Risker 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with this issue. The reason antisocialmedia.net was obfuscated in Overstock.com is not that it was an attack on Overstock.com, it was that it contained attacks on Wikipedia editors. Use of sources and links in articles is governed by policies like use reliable sources. WP:NPA is only supposed to govern how editors interact with one another. When one editor says to another editor, "You suck and I can prove it because somewebsite says so [link]" that's a personal attack. Putting michaelmoore.com or donmurphy.com as external links in the articles about those people is not a personal attack by one editor on another editor, no matter what the content of the web site is. Thatcher131 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. Michaelmoore.com and donmurphy.net are both authoritative sources about notable individuals, neither of them serves primarily to attack. Other sites, with antisocialmedia being a particularly vivid example, but also including wikipediareview and encyclopedia dramatica, have absolutely no redeeming encyclopaedic merit; none of them has anything that we could actually use in an article, so it's much harder to see how any link to them could be valid anywhere. We had a problem in Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about links to an attack blog run by someone in her constituency, it took some time to get that out. That is the kind of situation covered by BLP. ASM is more of a grey area, in that it doesn't attack any article subject, but it is a site which exists primarily to pursue a vendetta, and it does so in a particularly nasty way. There is pretty much nothing we can learn of value by studying Bagley's critique, since his beef is basically that he was not allowed to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:NPOV and this is not fixable. Bagley is looking to create dissent and drama, and succeeding admirably. His complaint is, and always was, baseless; as Fred said to him, others may have committed minor sins, but he has committed major sins in retaliation; I'd add that he has committed these sins with entirely base motives. We have a guideline that says not to bring external disputes to Wikipedia. We should not ignore those on the losing side of a dispute who then choose to take it off Wikipedia in an attempt to end-run around policy. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bigger problem with ASM is that omitting the site's name is conspicuous, since every citation names it. And as far as "bringing external disputes to Wikipedia", that is exactly the problem with the whole BADSITES non-policy. Without it, we say "Bagley made this site ASM with attacks on WP-ites as part of this larger dispute," and be done with it. What we are getting instead is that BADSITES is being used as a reason/excuse/pretext (depending on how much "good faith" rope you are willing to grant) to control the content of Wikipedia based upon Bagley's attacks. The Anne Milton case has merits as a parallel, but I notice that in her case the source does not name the site. The question of who was behind the blog in her case also doesn't seem to have become a matter of note, whereas in the ASM/Bagley case the importance of the site is precisely that Bagley is behind it. And for those who have their scorecards out, ASM plays off an existing dispute between factors on Wikipedia and various people who have been expelled from here over a particular person who is involved in the disputes around overstock.com and who may or may not be a Wikipedia editor who is participating in these discussions as if he were not an involved party. Just to make things worse, the WR/ED people have a bee in their bonnet about this guy's identity, and if memory serves me, one of the players on WR is also involved in the same disputes that overstock.com is stirring up.

There is clearly room to discuss how much emphasis is placed upon all these connections, especially when we are talking article space. The issue that I see, however, is that we keep running the risk here of sacrificing accurate reportage of the material in order to keep the "external disputes" out, because the disputes aren't really entirely external now. Putting us in the position of suyppressing cited material in order to protect our own is putting us in the position of risking another black mark on our reputation. If someone else is able to demonstrate that certain key ASM allegations are correct, the business press will be able to twig us as (perhaps unwitting) participants in someone's illegitimate financial maneuvering. We need to strike a middle course here, between pretending the allegations don't exist and appearing to endorse them. It seems to me that this course is best followed by naming Bagley (which I think has to be done no matter what), naming the site, and sketching out who (real world) is being attacked wihtout going into detail about what's claimed about that persons' Wikipedia activity. And this all has to be set within the context of Overstock.com's larger securities issues. We surely don't have to repeat the allegations, and there's no way at all that we can't leave enough of a trail for people to find those allegations. Mangoe 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP does not apply in this circumstance, as BLP is just a guideline that requires NPOV to be followed more strictly in certain circumstances.

Using sources is required by NPOV. Failing to mention a source, or, worse, failing to use it, would be a violation of NPOV. Claiming that a source is an "attack site" is a suggestion that it fails to meet the concept embodied in "use reliable sources" and other such guidelines; I has nothing to do with personal attacks on contributors, as that is a guideline for the behaviour of editors in engaging in comment on- and off-wiki, not in writing content.

James F. (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:BLP applies to all content referring to living individuals. Actually, not censored notwithstanding, I would say it is inappropriate to link to sites which prominently attack people, whether editors or not; hate speech sites, for example. But that's just me. Here, we have an editor who feels personally attacked by the presence of the links. We should be sensitive to that, and not make statements of faith that we should link For Great Justice or something, we really need to be more nuanced than that. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Does BLP apply to me? Does it apply outside the article space? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether some wikijargon applies to published attacks on article subjects, contributors or both is sort of beside the point. BLP exists because 1) we (at least some of us) are trying to take some responsibility for what we publish 2) neither the foundation nor any contributors can see any benefit in being involved in litigation by the subjects of the articles we publish. I can't see why those concerns wouldn't be equally applicable to attacks on any other living person from the english Wikipedia.Proabivouac 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

James, you should definitely not bother opening a case if all you're going to do is say, "everyone messed up, no one gets punished." However, don't expect a mere clarification to carry much weight. [21] [22] Thatcher131 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want such a ruling, but that is what is likely to come out of this, as all ArbCom-watchers will known. And given how our words are twisted to the purposes of those that use them, will there really be any great merit in seemingly re-writing the previous ruling. Clarifications are meant to have the same "weight" as any other official decision from the Committee.

James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, James F.; however, this interpretation of WP:BLP (as well as WP:HARASS) has already been used in user space, archived pages, RFAR archives, other project space, and throughout article space (including talk) to remove perceived attacks against WP editors. I don't think a clarification of the previous case is going to be sufficient to put paid to such practices, although certainly such an addition to the meta policy is important and valuable. Risker 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me an excellent point - even under the "it doesn't apply to the article space" clarifications, discussion of these links becomes difficult. "Should we mention antisocialmedia.net by name" and "Should we mention the site by name" are two very different questions, as the latter cannot be answered by anyone not already familiar with the situation. This makes things like RFC and requests for attention very difficult in these situations.

To my mind, the problem is that NPA is a policy that, at its core, is designed to attack bad faith behavior. The inclusion of the attack sites material changes it so that it now attacks good faith behavior. But it is not equipped to do that, nor should it - good faith behavior should virtually never be reverted on sight. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are still difficulties in modifying our policies so that those unable to follow the most important - use common sense - are still able to contribute. I'm not sure that that is an efficient or deseriable use of our time, however. (Or, in brief, discussion of valid contributions to an article are always appropriate on said article's talk page. If you don't like it, don't view it.)

On the larger point, I think Phil has it just right here: the NPA behavioural rule does indeed apply to situations where you're already assuming bad faith, and that that isn't appropriate as a rule to apply to editing at large.

James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say it was used in most of those places to claim that those links were attacks. I like the general drift of this clarification, but even if articles themselves are placed off-limits, there's still the problem that BADSITES has been invoked to cripple discussion of the sites in question by censoring citations to material on the sites. Presumably it could also be invoked to (for instance) keep Don Murphy's site from being referred to in any discussion context.

The thing that is causing all the disruption is the imputation that any link to a site where there is an "attack" (whatever that might be) is thus also an attack. So someone writes an article on Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who is emphatically notable) and includes the obvious extern link to her site. Time passes, and in the blog there she makes a post about Wikipedia, and down in the comments, someone names an editor here. So all of a sudden, the link is ex post facto an attack. Well, that's just nonsense. All that matters is the context in which a link occurs, and not the link itself. Mangoe 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, such an application of any rules would be nonsense on stilts.

James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A clarification regarding links to so-called attack sites in main article space is a very useful thing to have, but it then still leaves unsettled the separate question of what sort of links are appropriate, and in what circumstances, in places such as talk, user, and project pages, where Wikipedia-centered navel-gazing is appropriate, and giving the appearance of suppressing criticism is not the best image. *Dan T.* 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what consensus is for. We did not form the Committee to be the Herod of community. We aren't here to set policy, and people should stop asking us to do this. If the community really does want the Privy Council to go ahead, they should talk about doing so, not appealling to us due to a lack of anyone else.

James F. (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Overstock page, where this is a live issue, I pointed out that naming ASM neither adds nor detracts from the article. However, since it is in large measure devoted to attacks against and "outing" of Wikipedians, NPA tips the scales against including. Currently NPA mandates (or appears to mandate) removal of links from article space. I don't see why it can't be a consideration, however, if the neutrality of the article is not compromised. I think that you can easily adjust NPA to clarify that point. Perhaps something like: "links or references to external attacks should be removed from article space if they do not compromise the neutrality of the article." Then you have your cake and eat it too. If the concern is neutrality and only neutrality, this should rectify that concern.--Mantanmoreland 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it very misleading to say that it adds nothing to the article. It adds something in the same way that the inclusion of the hexadecimal string does in AACS encryption key controversy or the inclusion of the picture of L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting does in Xenu - it adds a level of transparency and thoroughness to the article. Put another way, if someone reading the article thinks "OK, but what is the site?" then we're obviously excluding expected information, which is a problem for the article. Obscuring the site also presents some verifiability issues, and, by extension, some NPOV issues. Certainly, if there were a situation that were genuinely without other consideration the statement "remove the link to an attack site" would hold, but I cannot imagine an editorial situation that was actually so neutral. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What has happened is that another one of my predictions back in the original BADSITES arguments has come to pass: the fact that someone has created an attack website (and that characterization is utterly fair in this case) to discredit someone via Wikipedia, and that site has hit the news. So now we have notable attacks. Which do we choose: censorship, or completeness? If we take the "article" formula being proposed, then we get completeness. If we let Wikipedia is not censored be the governing principle, then we get completeness.

I'd also like to point out that the dispute has affected the accuracy of the article. The situation has apparently changed somewhat since the conflict began, and the "nonlinking" version is no longer correct. Mangoe 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. The "nonlinking" (current) version reads as follows: In January 2007, it was revealed that an executive of Overstock.com was responsible for the creation of anonymous website which attacked critics of Overstock.com, including media figures and private citizens on message boards. Byrne has expressed public support of the site. That is how it has read for a long time, and it is accurate (see quote from the Times posted by Thatcher on the talk page).

Phil, that paragraph is carefully sourced, and there are no possible verifiability issues. If we omit "antisocialmedia.net" so as to not link to harassment of an editor, there is no loss to the reader. As you point out, the name of the site is in the sources. As for neutrality, you keep baldly asserting that its inclusion makes the article less neutral but you have not demonstrated how this is so. I'd say exclusion or inclusion is a wash. --Mantanmoreland 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a separate content issue, in that the site-name-less version whitewashes Bagley's (and therefore overstock.com's) involvement in the site. Even on the basis of the citations, what it says is inadequate. So it seems I was mistaken, and that the contested paragraph was always inaccurate when it didn't name the site. All this is a bit irrelevant; we are still stuck against the reality that the site's attacks upon you are notable. It may be necessary for ArbCom to consider that question, it appears, because even if BADSITES is finally repudiated I anticipate conflict on that specific point. Mangoe 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "content issue," and never was until a half-dozen editors never previously interested in the company began adding the name of the site to the article. No previous editor on the page, including the Bagley sock who was just banned, ever insisted on adding the name of the site. You may disagree with omission from the article but continually calling it "inaccurate" when it is not is disruptive and adds nothing to the discussion.

Since you may not be familiar with Overstock.com, I would like to point out that the company is the subject of two SEC investigations and a massive amount of negative and even lurid publicity. The Bagley misdeeds are small potatoes compared to what this company is up to and the article describes everything in a balanced and neutral fashion. I can't imagine the ArbCom forcing upon this article a great deal of negative material on this one matter when there is so much more of greater significance albeit less titillation value.--Samiharris 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be more accurate for it to read along these lines: "In January 2007, it was revealed that, Judd Bagley, director of Communications for Overstock.com, was responsible for the creation of anonymous website which attacked critics of Overstock.com, including media figures and private citizens on message boards." I fail to understand the reticence to give his name, when every source in the matter does. It doesn't seem to be a matter of relative importance, either, but simply one element of a larger conflict over stock manipulations. Mangoe 03:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your version is neither more or less accurate or neutral than the consensus version that was there for months and was not disputed by any of the editors of the article. Actually it is slightly less precise than the current version because it gives his title as "director of communications" when he was originally "director of social media" and then recently "director of communications." This is an encyclopedia, not Trivial Pursuit. Are we going to bang out in "Requests for arbitration" every editorial decision about the naming or not naming of some minor corporate officer made by editors in an article months ago? --Samiharris 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Those details are easily polished, and indeed I see someone has done so in response to the Judd Bagley AfD closure. Again, I continue to be puzzled by the urge to play down this incident, as it has proven to be really quite easy to cite this thing. And I am coming around to the view that there is a POV problem here. I just don't see the sources saying that this is unimportant; indeed, from what I can see they view this as an interesting twist in the tactics of dubious stock manipulation. It might be unimportant in the long run, but WP:CRYSTAL applies in that direction too. Mangoe 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we probably need an unambiguous ArbCom statement to the effect that the community, by its normal means of consensus, has the right to enact whatever policy on this issue it deems proper (within the bounds of core foundation policy), and that it's not proper to cite any past ArbCom decisions as if they were binding precedent that trump consensus, as has been frequently done. *Dan T.* 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem here in that we leave the door open for linking in mainspace to offsite content which is defamatory or attacks living individuals, so we should probably agree (as editors, not through ArbCom) some clarification to WP:BLP which presumes against linking to sites which have significant amounts of attack or denigration, unless there is a compelling reason to link. The onus is always on those proposing content to justify it and achieve consensus, where that consensus is absent, and where the content attacks people who are, incidentally, Wikipedia editors, then pressing zealously for links may, with some justification, be thought to be harassment. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this is a problem; I cannot see how we (individually, corporately, ecumenically...) can be held responsible for what people do on other sites, any more than Google can be held responsible for people using it to search for defamatory material. If someone has a problem with material on some site that we link to, their recourse is to approach those who control the offending site, since the material is there whether we link to it or not.

And that those attacked are Wikipedia editors is not the least bit incidental. It is a major threat to our credibility. In almost every case thus far, the editor being criticized in the attacks has shown up to invoke this non-policy, generally without any admission that they are an interested party. I just don't think we can afford this; again, this is something which is going to show up in citable media someday: that these policies are being used to protect questionable activity from external criticism.

Almost anything can be done to harass, if it is done persistently enough; one man's harrassment is another's annoyance. Yes, I'm sure it's annoying that we keep complaining about these deletions; and I find it annoying that the matter keeps coming up. Life is full of annoyances; the way to get rid of this one is to resolve the matter once and for all. Mangoe 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many rules regulating external sites, and particularly their application to living people. That tends to toss out linking to these "attack sites" long before they land in this "badsites" controversy.--Samiharris 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Then enforce those other rules, where it's appropriate to do so... we don't need any separate BADSITES-style rule at all. *Dan T.* 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

- It seems to me the sticking point is what denotes offsite content, ie an attack page or a BADSITE that has attack pages but with the attack pages not being directly linked to from wikipedia (as is the case with Don Murphy's website) and that is what the arbcom need to give clarification over, SqueakBox 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that, just now, User:JzG has added a Wikipedia-criticism site to the spam blacklist without discussion, despite the general guideline that such things need to be discussed on the talk page. This seems to be yet another of the many attempts to get some spawn of WP:BADSITES to be treated as policy. *Dan T.* 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a "wikipedia criticism site" by any realistic or sensible definition of the term. The site operator's sole criticism of Wikipedia is that it would not let him pursue his Holy Crusade, and I blacklisted the link (on en: only, not in the main spam blacklist, although I am a meta sysop) because it is not used in mainspace but was being used in project and user space in a way that was causing real distress and harassment to a long-standing editor. It is very hard to think of an analogy without violating Godwin's Law; we are under absolutely no obligation to take seriously, still less facilitate, the delusional outpourings of sociopaths. But don't worry, Dan, Viridae immediately removed it, so you're free to link to yet another pile of fetid excreta masquerading as critique. These are not "so-called" attack sites, they are attack sites. There is a huge difference between something like Wikitruth which at least tries to be fair some of the time, and has some kind of commitment to making Wikipedia better, and ASM, which exists solely to pursue one man's mission to edit in violation our core policies. If you thik Bagley wants to make Wikipedia better, then you are deluded. He wants to make Wikipedia support his agenda, and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a straw man argument to claim that I'm saying that this guy is trying to make Wikipedia better, since I've never claimed any such thing (though we all must be careful about publicly imputing derogatory motives to a living person, under BLP and NPA and AGF... even banned editors retain a right not to be unnecessarily attacked). My arguments are more along the lines of (1) Even if somebody is doing someting for totally biased and self-serving motives... even if he's a completely evil person... that doesn't mean that everything in their line of argument is wrong. Sometimes the "bad guys" serve a useful role in their ability to find and publicize things that the "good guys" are doing wrong, which others on the "good" team will be inclined to shove under the rug out of personal and team loyalty. Perhaps Superman really needs a Lex Luthor around, else his unchecked power will eventually get to his head and be abused (there have actually been several stories in the comics along those lines). Things the "bad guys" say certainly need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, and independently verified before any action is taken, but that isn't the same as automatically dismissing and suppressing them. (2) And if the attacks are totally without merit and truth, then why be afraid of them? Best to confront and refute them openly, or just ignore them, but not give the appearance of trying to cover something up. *Dan T.* 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, everything in his line of argument is wrong. Add to that his baseless and flagrant attempts to violate privacy, his promotion of discredited conspiracy theories and other general lunacy, and you have a site which has absolutely no redeeming merits whatsoever. Let's be absolutely clear here: there is no way that Bagley improves Wikipedia. There is no way that his site improves Wikipedia. There is no way that linking to his site improves Wikipedia. Nobody is afraid of his attacks, but they are distressing to the person attacked. Again, it is hard to reply without invoking Godwin's Law. Would you say that the self-evident fatuity of anti-semitic polemic means it's fine to link it even though it offends Jewish editors? We should not aid and abet the likes of Bagley in pursuing their tawdry and selfish campaigns. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there ought to be a modern version of Godwin's Law that applies to comparisons to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but one should note that our article on that guy includes a link to his infamous videos. It's hard to get more evil than that. There are probably 9/11 widows offended by that, but we don't let that override the need of people to be fully informed, including about what the "bad guys" are saying. *Dan T.* 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
An interesting essay on karma vs. image in a Google-related blog states that one of the differences is that karma is often improved by outside criticism, while image is often hurt by outside criticism. It would appear that various people involved in Wikipedia-related debates are more concerned with image than karma, including editors who are hyper about how they're being hurt by "attack sites", as well as bio subjects demanding veto power over having an article about them because they regard this as inherently harmful. *Dan T.* 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Re; "Would you say that the self-evident fatuity of anti-semitic polemic means it's fine to link it even though it offends Jewish editors?" You mean, like this (I presume that there is anti-semitic rhetoric there, I don't care to taint myself by looking)? There is enough good policy to disallow linking where there is no useful purpose for an encyclopedic article, but BADSITES derived NPA language sets a different standard to elsewhere Wikipedia content, as my example shows. Are Jewish (or any other potentially discriminated grouping) editors more worthy of consideration than Jewish (or any other.. etc.) readers? The MONGO case originally referred to the linking to sites, containing material attacking an individual editor, for the purpose of harassing said editor, not a group(ing). LessHeard vanU 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some resolution here?

The whole BADSITES thing seems to be in a state of supreme contradiction. The attempt to open a case seems to have stalled because of this request for clarification. This request seems to have stalled because the situation w.r.t. overstock.com and antisocialmedia and Judd Bagley has pushed the discussion into new territory. Meanwhile ArbCom (with the advice of some unnamed others) has gone off and simply blocked linking to ASM.net.

I'm not as bent about the latter blockage as some are, because I can understand not wanting to have to police the place to keep out what in this case clearly are attacks. But besides all the questionable implications of doing it, the "clarification" seems to be: "Well, if ArbCom takes a sufficient dislike to a site, they can unilaterally block it." This is not an improvement in clarity. BADSITES has always wavered between a "policy" delivered by ArbCom and a non-policy rejected on two attempts already; now we have some unstated version of it being acted on without any community consensus. Nobody knows what the rules are, and meanwhile it continues to be a disruption, particularly in this case where the offending website isn't just an external link, but is named as content.

Can we get some resolution here, or at least some progress in that direction? Mangoe 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simply really, if a site is really nasty you should not link to it. If it is a site that occasionally has negative material, you should simply avoid the negative material. It's kind of like the difference between a fart and and a pile of shit. If there is real harm being done, avoid it completely. Fred Bauder 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, that doesn't leave us with any resolution other than to have a fight every time someone points to a site that might, somewhere in its bowels, do "harm". If real harm is being done, the victim has recourse to the courts, and does not need our assistance. Bagley is, after all, named as author of the site in question, and is thus available to be sued. What we have inevitably talked about here is hypothetical harm. And often enough, it may not be the kind of "harm" that constitutes a tort: after all, it isn't libel if it's true.

And as has been said before here, "Wikipedia is not censored." Nastiness by itself isn't an criteria for exclusion. Therefore trying to exclude things on the ground of simple nastiness is going to provoke arguments, because it isn't simple. Every "simple" argument that has come up here in defense of exclusion has been poked full of holes, when it wasn't just bald misrepresentation of the facts. Whenever protecting people has come to the fore of all other principles, it has turned into a cover for people who are potentially doing something wrong to protect them from being criticized for it.

And not to pick on you, Fred, but single statements by ArbCom members or admins have simply served to fan the flames, because nobody feels particularly bound by them. They're just another thing to argue about. Mangoe 11:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, some people have understood that decision in the way you mean from the very beginning. Others have tried to drastically expand it (the failed BADSITES proposal and the changes snuck into NPA) and apply it to article space. What remains to be seen is whether this clarification will stop the edit warring. Thatcher131 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody snuck in anything (though it would be cool to have an 'insert' button to match 'delete'). And the arbcom findings applied to article space - links to ED in the article about ED. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're rewriting history, since the ED article was already deleted at the time that decision was made, and most people feel that, should it ever be recreated (and some argue that it's notable enough for that, while others disagree) it ought to have a link to the site as is normal practice to link to sites on articles about them. My impression is that the decision pertained to "trolls" spamming links to the site in inappropriate places following the deletion of the article that would be the one legitimate place to put it. At any rate, the Arbcom lacks the power to make policy or make content decisions regarding articles. *Dan T.* 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoth Fred: "It's pretty simply really, if a site is really nasty you should not link to it."

No. Wikipedia links to neo-nazi sites. It links to radical Islamic sites. It links to some of the nastiest sites in existence. And it should. We're a neutral encyclopedia, not the arbitrators of moral rectitude. We can't accurately report on a subject without giving information about what they believe and do. Linking to sites they create and maintain is one of the clearest and most direct ways of doing so... which is why our link guidelines hold that we should do so.

If a link is appropriate under our standards for reliable source and notability or external links then it can and should be included... regardless of how 'nasty' subjective opinions hold the site to be. If a link to a site is needed to demonstrate some valid point in discussion then it should be included.

We already have policies to cover all of this. Links which are posted solely to insult some user rather than because they are relevant to the article/discussion are personal attacks and can be treated as such (warnings and blocks - possibly removal, though 'remove personal attacks' has always been controversial and this new 'remove links to attack sites' application of it no less so).

If Kim Jong-il signed up for a Wikipedia account we wouldn't suddenly remove all references to criticisms of him. We wouldn't ban all links to sites which engaged in 'attacks' upon him. We wouldn't ban links to criticism of him from discussion on talk pages. Rather, we would continue to apply our requirements that any criticism and links be to reliable sources, that the information included be notable, and that this user be treated with civility and not subject to personal attacks (well, in theory, we'd do that last). There is no need for any sort of 'new' procedure for handling these issues... and every effort to construct one has been, and will be, used as a wedge in efforts to change the way our core principles are applied. --CBD 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent from the voluminous commentary that the original ArbCom ruling allowed for some extremely expansive interpretation. If we can all settle on the clarification that "linking to attacks as a kind of trolling or harassment is prohibited", or similar language, then I think this could be settled quickly. But we need some consensus expressed from ArbCom one way or the other. Right now it seems that we're getting a variety of inconsistent personal opinions. Mangoe 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I supported the BADSITES policy proposal only because my definition of what a BADSITE is is one that routinely engages in the "outting" of our contributors who wish to remain anonymous. We cannot regulate what other sites have posted, but we can work to protect our editors from potential real life harm by not aiding in the dispersal of their real life identity by linking to such a site. If one of these "BADSITES" has relevent information that might be needed by arbcom, then it can always be emailed to them. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not a suppression of criticism, even if it is invalid, but protection of our editor's right to privacy.--MONGO 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the perennial question: is this right to privacy absolute? Taken in the large, it is not, and indeed, it is nonexistent. If someone figures out who a Wikipedia editor is, and publishes his conclusion, he has the right to do so. It may be immoral (by whatever standard), but law and rule cannot address that.

Therefore whatever protection we can offer is limited, and the case of ASM.net illustrates just how limited it is. Anyone who comes across the cited sources is told where to find the attacks that most surely do exist on that site, so omission of the site's name in the article is banking on readers not looking at the cited work. Putting the name in but not hotlinking it is banking on them not typing the URL in themselves.

We can't put editor's masks back on if they fall off. I understand the concern over one editor taking advantage of such a site to put in an indirect attack upon another, but I doubt whether going beyond that is more important than writing an accurate, unbowdlerized, comprehensive encyclopedia. Mangoe 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes... if real life were like the comic books, then it might be possible to regain anonymity... if somebody discovers that Superman is Clark Kent and tells a whole crowd of people, he can still resort to super-hypnosis, or get an amnesia ray from his Fortress of Solitude, or get his Justice League friends to help pull off an elaborate super-hoax that has the public thinking that the earlier revelation was wrong... or whatever other plot twist the writers might have. The real world isn't quite the same. *Dan T.* 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have the right to edit anonymously if they wish. If their real life identity is "discovered" by people on other websites and that is linked here against their wishes, then we are violating their right to privacy. If editors here previously posted their real life identity or information which led them to having their real identities becoming discovered, and they then change their information provided to protect them from being exposed, we should do what we can to honor their wishes to not aide and abet other websites that do not care about their current desires to edit anonymously.--MONGO 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But not to the point of restricting WP's ability to link to a source for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. If the information is available on the internet somewhere there is no point, IMO, in lessening WP's "right" to provide informative links simply to reduce the potential of accessing some information that could be found anyway. Primarily, WP is an encyclopedia first and an (anonymous) editing grouping some way behind. LessHeard vanU 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some websites that do little other than provide harassment fodder and as such, I highly doubt the exclusion of these extremely few websites is going to reduce our ability to be encyclopedic.--MONGO 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some seem to think Wikipedia should be renamed "Editors Anonymous", since it serves as a support group for the obsessive-compulsive. *Dan T.* 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't aide and abet the efforts of other sites to "out" our contibutors.--MONGO 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, WP never has... so, how does not being able to link to a site for the purposes of improving the encyclopedia effect that? LessHeard vanU 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We also don't aid and abet the Aryan Nations' goals of white supremacy, but that doesn't stop us from linking to their homepage; the idea that acknowledging the existence of harassment is the same as supporting it is in direct opposition to the goal of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's possible for bad things to be notable, or for a Web site where bad things happen to be notable for other reasons. ShaleZero 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan T., I think we can all agree that obsession is bad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This rather abstracted talk about whether we can do without the attack sites and whether or not we should "aid[e] and abet" the attackers has become pretty much detached from reality. I do not think that the right to anonymity here is absolute, but in any case, as I seem to find myself repeating, we can't make people anonymous again once their identities have been revealed. Difference of opinion over how hard we can make it to find these attacks never seems to be resolved. But in any case, reality has outstripped the MONGO decision. It was one thing when people linked to these sites to torment others; nobody disagrees that this ought to stopped. When we went from there to other Wikipedia criticism on the same sites, it at least could be argued that such criticism was worthless, though in practice you and others edit warred to prevent contrary evidence from being presented. But then we move on to other sites which happened to have one or two revelations of identity buried in a mass of other material; and now we have a site whose attacks on editors are themselves noteworthy. I don't see how we can avoid making distinctions among these cases. Mangoe 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it detached from reality? Interesting. No, there is no reason to link to websites that "out" our contributors against their wishes. We now have a website whose attacks on our contributors is noteworthy? How so? If it is "outting" anyone here against their wishes, but is something arbcom needs to make a decison, then it can be emailed to them...and that makes it unnecessary to link directly to it.--MONGO 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: is it your argument that there is no reason to link to Michael Moore's official site in our article about Michael Moore? Should we, or should we not link to Patrick Nielsen Hayden's official site in our article on Patrick Nielsen Hayden? In a more recently contentious matter, how would you suggest administering the external links section of Don Murphy? The relevant policy seems pretty clear that, in general, official sites of people or organizations covered in articles ought to be linked from those articles. JavaTenor 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At present, I see no evidence any of the sites you mention is engaged in the effort to "out" our contributors. Moore's site was previously doing this and the webmaster there had links that took one directly to two open editing windows on our site, which appeared to be an invitation to vandalize. Morton devonshire and I were singled out by a well known conspiracy theorist http: //prisonplanet .com/articles/july2007/280707fightback.htm, but I didn't delete links to his website since he wasn't "outting" either of us.--MONGO 05:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if that activity was still going on at www.michaelmoore.com, you would have us delete links to it, regardless of notability or its relevance to a notable subject?ShaleZero 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Proabivouac (September 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proabivouac (talk · contribs) asserts that this notification [23] on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard violates WP:HARASS. He has emailed me asserting that reverting his removal (as several people did) is linking to an attack site, outing and harassment. Since the notice appears to be an official one his problem would appear to be with ArbCom. I have suggetsed several times that he take it up with the arbitrators, but he seems to prefer debating this with me by email, which is not going to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To wit, "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives."

That's your contract with your volunteers. That's the policy you're supposed to uphold, and there's nothing in any other policy, including WP:Probation, which contradicts or abrogates it. I followed the policy, your agents broke it. If you wish to attack pseuds, go on ahead, but please leave living people alone.Proabivouac 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - Proabivouac could easily have avoided this consequence by:

Notifying ArbCom of his username change at the time - though that would still have caused issues with the practicality of enforcing the probation
Continuing to edit by his prior account name until his probation expired, then starting a new account
Not editing at all until his probation expired, then starting a new account

It seems odd to object now that the covert change has been discovered when one failed to be honest and up-front at the beginning. Probation is not given out lightly by ArbCom and evading it (even where the name change was for an unrelated-legitimate purpose) is equally seriously. Effectively we are back at square one. The question remains: can the probation be adequately enforced with only a "select" number of people aware that it applies to Proabivouac and not his prior identity? If not, I think he needs to avoid editing with any account other than that under probation until the expiry of the probation. WjBscribe 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we could inform the community of the fact and terms of Proabivouac's probation while still preserving his privacy: User:Proabivouac is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think any issues related to the probation can only arise when its terms are breached. If they prove not to, who cares about the details. El_C 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe touches on an important question, further compounded here by privacy issues posed by the prior account (this is something everyone here, except for me, would suffer in that event; i.e. using their real name or initials therein). El_C 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to state that he is on probation, that the probation has been reset as he is now known to have been a party and to have changed accounts, as to whether we need to know which account, I would not like to say, and whether we'd need to record the evidence for transparency is also open to question. This does need clarifying. I agree that he is essentially the author of his own misfortune here, but we can probably come up with some way not to rub his face in it. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We can archive the announcement to hide it from google but the basic facts have been known to some for more than 3 weeks. Announcing a probation with no underlying case would have only confirmed those facts for those who know, and stirred up the community of editors who didn't know. We would be falling all over ourselves to delete and oversight edits from the noticeboard as editors who think they have a right to know what goes on behind the scenes (and maybe they're right) try to figure it out and decide (as if they had a veto) whether it was justified. I can not think of a single instance where having the Arbitration Committee tell the community at large, "We have decided X now stop talking about it" has not had the opposite outcome. Thatcher131 11:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How was it the arbitration committee was informed? I have a hunch, but would like to know if anyone has a different version than my hunch.--MONGO 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a concern which I shared with Dmcdevit. We both exchanged emails with the user, then Dmcdevit forwarded some information to the AC mailing list. Thatcher131 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Was there evidence of disruption which led you to do an investigation?--MONGO 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, MONGO, it was an attack thread on the so-called "attack site" which we've duplicated and exceded here. No one has credibly purported any disruption besides the purported disruption of removing warnings about my purported disruption.

Thatcher131, the very Wikimedia Foundation was informed well before that, as was an arbitrator and a great number of adminstrators.

Guy, the author of someone's misfortune has here a literal meaning, as does publisher. I'm glad you don't wish to rub my face in malicious attacks the Arbitration Committee has sponsored, hosted and published about anyone. The bottom line is that the Foundation has no right to publish this kind of material.Proabivouac 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A report was made to WP:AE, which I have watchlisted. Shortly after, I noticed that the report had disappeared and the edit was deleted. Since users who evade their probation are not normally afforded this privilege, I made some discreet inquiries as to whether this was a privacy issue that was known to ArbCom or not. Although the user claims to have informed one Arbitrator and gotten permission from the office, neither JamesF or Dmcdevit had any knowledge or record of a discussion approving this. Other than make the inquiry, I have taken no action and have not been involved in any discussions with ArbCom about their reaction. Whether the office can override ArbCom, or vice versa, is obviously beyond my scope. Thatcher131 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was getting at...where did the original info come from. My rhetorical question about any evidence of disruption from Proabivouc's editing history made me wonder who/why anyone would even look into this matter. It is not something anyone generally does unless there is a reason to do it...but then again, there are those that exist off-site who are very bored, very sad and very sick.--MONGO 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The user who posted the now-deleted report is indeed suspected of being a banned user who hangs around an attack site. However, I first learned of the accusation on-wiki. I would also like to say that I am very disturbed at the claim that "a great number of administrators" knew that Proabivouac had changed his name and was evading his probation and that this somehow makes it ok. The Hkelkar 2 arbitration case was also partly about accusations that some admins were allowing banned editors to edit under new accounts or were encouraging meat puppetry. When NuclearUmpf was exposed as Zer0faults, his probation was vigorously enforced. I am currently wrangling with User:Ebonyskye which I believe is a reincarnation of User:GuardianZ who is under a topic ban. I don't like secret deals that allow some editors to evade blocks, bans and other remedies that apply to other uses who don't have the right connections. Thatcher131 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur that no admins should help enable anyone evade an arbitration committee ruling and perhaps a comment made in private to the committee about any username change would have been best. However, what I see here is, as you have clarified, off-site trolls have apparently worked to "out" this editor...not probably because they are so much concerned about any disruption, but because they wanted to volate his desire to no longer have his (supposed) real name used. For the record, all this is a revelation to me, and checking Proabivouc's edits, I haven't seen any evidence that he has been acting disruptively, or in violation of any prior arbcom sanction. I suspected that the seeds for this were originally sown off-site.--MONGO 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that so many have collaborated in this manner may alternately be taken as a recognition that the Committee's actions were horribly unfair. Or is that an impossible concept in Wikiland?

The proceedings of the committee were the most vicious attack machine I've ever come across on the web. Perhaps you publish things because you are interested in looking at and considering them, but that's actually a horrible reason to publish anything, isn't it?

"No, of course, we would never think to libel you. What we will do is provide this dedicated space for this notorious attack-only pseudonymous troll to say whatever he likes about you, publish it from that point forward, and gratuitously link to it when we see fit. The content isn't our responsibility, but that of the pseudonymous troll to whom we provided this platform."

Um, no. Are you seriously asking that I should have linked to this junk on my own accord?Proabivouac 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is really very strange. I've seen absolutely no links to any attack sites, and the only editor whose edits in respect of it I have reviewed , User:Morven,is absolutely not a sockpuppet. You're not denying the truth of the statement, not denying that you were sidestepping the the arbitration sanction, nobody seems to be disputing that it is right it should be renewed, the only grounds you appear to have for disputing this is the fact that it was publicised somewhere else (and I have no idea where, because I've not even seen that source). Surely it would be better to take it like a man, and let the drama die down? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've completely misunderstood my comments, which were aimed at content subpages of the relevant decision. ArbCom continues to host attacks by a banned pseudonymous user against a private citizen for no obvious purpose. I'm asking that these sections be deleted, as I requested when they were posted to begin with.Proabivouac 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief. I am posting here as there is a discussion about some admins who have had knowledge about the issue. Well, yes, i am one of them. I got to know about that on-wiki (via email) just weeks after a RfC i filed against Proabivoauc back on January 2007. Apart from that, i don't recall Pro editing disruptively.

MONGO, i believe you are the only person in this discussion who technically cannot get access to the contents of that RfC. In other words, as Thatcher had mentioned yesterday at Pro talk page answering Tom Harrison, that RfC outcome would have been totally different if people could know who was Pro at that time. Now, i hope all parties get back to work and forget about the fuss. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I, as well, was aware of the fact, although not for as long, but I did operate under the assumption that the Arbitration Committee was also clued in to this. It is, however, my understanding that at least one Committee member and one Foundation official were made privy to it. El_C 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that if this was (otherwise) a problem account, we wouldn't be having this discussion. El_C 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Pro chasing some banned accounts here (w/ whom he had conflicts) led those account owners to post online the relationship between Pro new and old account. Pro insists on PRIVACY, ATTACKSITE, HARASS defending his case. On the other hand, the ArbCom saw that reseting the terms of the probation is WHATSHOULDBEDONE and that process counts especially in cases such as this. There would have been no further discussion if Pro would have kept it at minimum yesterday. This case is probably a precedent and hope it would never happen again in Wikipedia. It is the trust of people on the project which is at stake here. I believe that's why we are having this discussion here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are previous cases where a user under probation has attempted to discard that account and reincarnate. In all cases of which I am aware, the probation was enforced on the new account, except in one case where the probation period had actually expired before the new account was discovered. However, this is the first case where the original account was the user's real name, raising the privacy objection. Thatcher131 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does BADSITES have to pop up in everything these days? To edit under one's real name is to voluntarily reveal it; if one is to become anonymous again, one must accept responsibility for doing it effectively. Mangoe 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The username policy as it stood upon initial registration in 2004 read, "The best username is typically either your real name…"[24] It doesn't say that now, of course. I agree with that version that, on an ideal Wikipedia, editors would use their real names, state their real credentials, etc. However an ideal Wikipedia would also disallow and delete attacks on editors, just as it would disallow and delete attacks against people who aren't Wikipedia editors.Proabivouac 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"...or a longstanding internet pen name" Anyway, would it be realistic for Proabivouac to publicly agree to the extended probation and indicate that he is doing so because there are privacy concerns involved, thereby eliminating the need for public disclosure b/c Proab agrees to the the terms? Could we then delete/oversight the offending diffs, or are things already too far out of the bag?--Chaser - T 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone who'd never come across an attack site might have never thought to use a pen name, such that there would have been no longstanding one. If not, this individual would be merely following instructions by registering as he/she did. "Blame yourself for being naive enough to trust us and follow our instructions," is not a very convincing way of shirking responsibility.

Probation only means, don't disrupt the encyclopedia. Everyone should be on permanent probation; people who disrupt the encylopedia shouldn't be welcome here anyhow, and administrators are already free to block disruptive users. Either they're disruptive and should be banned, or they're productive and they shouldn't be. Its only added effect is to stain a username which means more or less depending on how important that name is to you.

To answer your question, Chaser, I don't too much care about what WP says about any pseud, starting with mine. Things get more serious when we identify a pseud with living people, either on or off-wikipedia. If Wikipedia doesn't want my or anyone else's volunteer labor, that's its right, and in my case, its loss. But no part of that decision can justify the publication of attacks against any real person.

If a non-profit enterprise has trouble with an volunteer, disinvite him/her back. Don't create a webpage with his/her legal name, saying how incompetent or otherwise deficient you think he/she is. Don't create a webpage where random people can anonymously write how awful they are. Isn't that just common sense?

Deleting (not just "blanking" which doesn't actually remove any content, but only changes its order of presentation) problematic content about real people is the right move whether Proabivouac is involved here or not, or under what arrangement. It's Wikipedia's right to determine who participates here. No one challenges that. It's not Wikipedia's right, however, to accomplish this in such a way that doesn't include the continued publication of malicious attacks against people. Somehow other organizations manage to accomplish the first while avoiding the other.Proabivouac 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blanked the Evidence page of the His excellency arbcom case as a courtesy. I am less willing to blank the initial complaint, where the accusations flung around are on a rather lower level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a step in the right direction, for which I thank you. However, Wikipedia should not publish this kind of material at all. Deletion would reduce it to the level of a WP-internal document, which administrators could view as necessary. It is only a button away.Proabivouac 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You've already been actively deleting, to the amazing extent of revert-warring against admins who are placing official notices, almost every mention of your original probation, on the grounds that there might be a mention of your former username in there, so non-admins already would need to fish the information out of the history page. If you get this information wiped completely, how exactly are non-administrators supposed to know that you were ever on probation? Normal editors have a part to play in enforcing wikipedia policies by spotting, reverting and reporting violations, something you well know. Your current account is already an apparent attempt to evade probation; one might think that all this link-deletion and wikilawyering is an attempt to hide your past actions from as many eyeballs as possible, so that you could avoid being caught again in future. After all, your original username is all over the wiki in hundreds of places - it's a bit of a coincidence that the instances you're complaining about are only those instances where administrators and arbitrators happen to detail your violations of wikipedia policies. My tuppence worth, to anyone who cares, is that if the consequences of the actions necessary to enforce wikipedia policies happen to be unpleasant for those who intentionally violate the policies, that's just the natural part of the punishment.--Aim Here 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your current account is already an apparent attempt to evade probation."

False. Do people meaning to hide from WF/WP inform the office? You can "wikilawyer" by saying I didn't tell every member of the Committee so it doesn't "count," but the fact is that people meaning to "evade" something wouldn't have informed the large nnumber of trustworthy people I did. You obviously don't know the whole story.

"Aim Here," I'd prefer you not wikistalk me to pages you've never edited before, as you did here. I recall that you also played a role in trolling JVM; is that your angle here?Proabivouac 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Will people please stay on topic? WP:RfAr stands for "Requests for Arbitration" not "Requests for Argument". If it doesn't relate directly to a request for clarification, then please post arguments elsewhere, or even better, not at all! --Deskana (talky) 11:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On-topic: "engaged in behavior that may have been subject to sanction under those conditions." What behavior are you talking about? When was it? And what's "may have been?" From where and when should I have been banned?Proabivouac 11:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piotrus (September 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.

All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?

ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.

I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:

This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.