ARBCOM Badsites, This is what they're saying about us ... Options Rating

They are voting on the proposed decision, but are having so much disagreement its not funny. Nonetheless, a few things have passed (and a few have failed so badly that they have been removed entirely). Note that with 11 arbitrators active, they need 6 votes to pass.

Passed:

Proposed principles:
1) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Freedom_of_Expression: 9/0/0
2) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#No Personal Attacks: 8/0/0
3) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Harassment: 8/0/0
4.2) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Linking to external sites as harassment: 7/0/0
11) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#External links: 6/0/0

<lots of links removed for brevity>

Anyway they've made a few decisions, and argued one hell of a lot. Are most Arb Com cases like this?

And to think, Durova invited me to complain within this ArbCom forum about her libel of me. Boy, wouldn't I have gotten a fair review there!

Greg

Gary Weiss now has his conflicted status endorsed and codified in the semi-permanent record.

24) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Anonymity and conflict of interest

Let us formally dub this the Weiss Clause of the BADSITES Act of 2007. It's like when some obscure corner of the federal budget includes a provision funding a park in some hold-out minority party representative's district. You do what it takes to bring folks on board.

Gary Weiss now has his conflicted status endorsed and codified in the semi-permanent record.

24) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Anonymity and conflict of interest

Let us formally dub this the Weiss Clause of the BADSITES Act of 2007. It's like when some obscure corner of the federal budget includes a provision funding a park in some hold-out minority party representative's district. You do what it takes to bring folks on board.

Anonymity and conflict of interest

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

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

This is the "Low Expectations" approach to ethics.

Great proposition. (Anonymity and conflict of interest)

Gary Weiss now has his conflicted status endorsed and codified in the semi-permanent record.

24) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Anonymity and conflict of interest

Let us formally dub this the Weiss Clause of the BADSITES Act of 2007. It's like when some obscure corner of the federal budget includes a provision funding a park in some hold-out minority party representative's district. You do what it takes to bring folks on board.

Anonymity and conflict of interest

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

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

This is the "Low Expectations" approach to ethics.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Wed 3rd October 2007, 4:23pm

4.2 reads,

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

and a definition of "Harassment" is given elsewhere. Still, in the past all a privileged editor needed to do is cry "harassment," and it was deemed harassment, without investigation. What change, if any, has been made here?

My favourite:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Anonymity and conflict of interest

Basically saying that woops it is impossible to enforce Conflict of Interest whilst at the same time allowing anonymity. I mean so long as you don't say you're conflicted then all is fine, right? Its a bit like how WR has the debate about Accountability versus Privacy. You can't be both. And Wikipedia has to decide which one they prefer. Conflict of Interest or Anonymity.

So what's going on? Are they deliberating or debilitating?

So what's going on? Are they deliberating or debilitating?

Pretty much all ArbCom cases are stagnant at the moment. Allegations of Apartheid has been going on since August.

So what's going on? Are they deliberating or debilitating?

Pretty much all ArbCom cases are stagnant at the moment. Allegations of Apartheid has been going on since August.

Gridlock, huh? Everyone's just waiting til December so the they can TRHO the Rascals Out and replace them with a fresh group of incompetent nitwits and subservient sychophants. That's progress.

No edits to it for ages.

Wikipedia wants to ban linking to pages that are attack pages that are also outing pages (e.g. antisocialmedia.net) and yet Wikipedia hosts its own pages that qualify as this. If Wikipedia was really serious about banning attack sites, it should ban all links to itself.

See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&gopid=53129&

Wikipedia wants to ban linking to pages that are attack pages that are also outing pages (e.g. antisocialmedia.net) and yet Wikipedia hosts its own pages that qualify as this. If Wikipedia was really serious about banning attack sites, it should ban all links to itself.

See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&gopid=53129&

That's exactly the evidence I presented, that Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback all unanimoulsy agreed Chip Berlet was a not a reputable source for Wikipedia, and then covered up the evidence. Berlet took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Hopefully ArbCom and the cabal will finally examine the evidence I presented.

Berlet claims my blog was "set up for the purpose of harassing us (SlimVirgin & Berlet) as Wiki editors"; the link he provides is cut and pasted from Wikipedia, What counts as reputable? where Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback all unanimoulsy agree Berlet is not a reputable source. I wrote none of it.

See this thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...378&#entry53378


corporatesexoffenders.com is the most attackingest site ever!

Wikipedia wants to ban linking to pages that are attack pages that are also outing pages (e.g. antisocialmedia.net) and yet Wikipedia hosts its own pages that qualify as this. If Wikipedia was really serious about banning attack sites, it should ban all links to itself.

See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&gopid=53129&

That's exactly the evidence I presented, that Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback all unanimoulsy agreed Chip Berlet was a not a reputable source for Wikipedia, and then covered up the evidence. Berlet took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Hopefully ArbCom and the cabal will finally examine the evidence I presented.

Berlet claims my blog was "set up for the purpose of harassing us (SlimVirgin & Berlet) as Wiki editors"; the link he provides is cut and pasted from Wikipedia, What counts as reputable? where Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback all unanimoulsy agree Berlet is not a reputable source. I wrote none of it.

I sympathize, Gerard nuked my WP account on the false premise that I was 1) Wordbomb and 2) My user page was being used as a "attack platform". Nevermind that it was a list of Wikipedia edits made by other editor(s).

Wikipedia wants to ban linking to pages that are attack pages that are also outing pages (e.g. antisocialmedia.net) and yet Wikipedia hosts its own pages that qualify as this. If Wikipedia was really serious about banning attack sites, it should ban all links to itself.

See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&gopid=53129&

That's exactly the evidence I presented, that Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback all unanimoulsy agreed Chip Berlet was a not a reputable source for Wikipedia, and then covered up the evidence. Berlet took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Hopefully ArbCom and the cabal will finally examine the evidence I presented.

Berlet claims my blog was "set up for the purpose of harassing us (SlimVirgin & Berlet) as Wiki editors"; the link he provides is cut and pasted from Wikipedia, What counts as reputable? where Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback all unanimoulsy agree Berlet is not a reputable source. I wrote none of it.

I sympathize, Gerard nuked my WP account on the false premise that I was 1) Wordbomb and 2) My user page was being used as a "attack platform". Nevermind that it was a list of Wikipedia edits made by other editor(s).

I've been down this road twice, (1) a citation to the Washington Post was deemed a personal attack; (2) cut n' pasting SlimVirgin's own words without comment is considered harassment.

It looks like they have reached their final decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...#Final_decision

Freedom of Expression

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

So Wikipedia Review is safe, right?

Malicious sites

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

Substantially devoted to? So WR is in the clear, right? They perhaps should define "outing" too, as that generally refers to someone's sexual orientation.

Satire

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

So ED is in the clear too, right?

Error

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

So not only is WR in the clear, we are a good site, right?

Fighting back

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

Indeed, whilst whinging about your ban isn't the main reason for WR's existence, if anyone has been banned and feels like whinging they are welcome to do so, and of course they do, and sometimes its useful to discussion too.

Struggle

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

So we create problems?

AntiSocialMedia.net

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

This is against ASM and only ASM.

Inappropriate application of policy

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

In other words, BADSITES was a bad idea

Sorting out

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

Oh so ED is a bad site too. Count it - ASM and ED are the only 2 bad sites out there.

The community is encouraged to develop a policy

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

Thus we have Wikipedia:Linking to external Harassment, the backdoor version of BADSITES, created by a sock puppet account User:Privatemusings, who may or may not be a high profile cabal member that wants to pretend that they are not really doing this...

Scope of this decision

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

In other words, WR is in the clear.

Indeed, WR looks to be shown very favourably here, except for the new proposal created by User:Privatemusings called Wikipedia:Linking to external Harassment, which looks dangerous.

Why can't they just say "we can't control external sites" and be done with it?

In other words, WR is in the clear.

Alrighty then, who is going to test Blissy's interpretation?

By definition corporatesexoffenders.com also fits since it has a big portion of its site to attacking and outing wikipedians. Of course wikipedia doesn't care since corporatesexoffenders.com doesn't attack administrators.

Perhaps the satirical part is more to protect sites like Uncyclopedia which does have a few attacks against individual Wikipedians like Cydeweys?

ED however has a mission to humiliate and harass whereas that is not the mission of Uncyclopedia or even this forum.

But, WR being linkable on WP? It ain't gonna happen.

Perhaps the satirical part is more to protect sites like Uncyclopedia which does have a few attacks against individual Wikipedians like Cydeweys?

ED however has a mission to humiliate and harass whereas that is not the mission of Uncyclopedia or even this forum.

But, WR being linkable on WP? It ain't gonna happen.

WR needs its article back.


I also would love to see Uncyclopedia made a bad site. What protects it is mainly that it's hosted on Wikia.

Is wikitruth a badsite still?