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

[Jonny Cache]

Actually, yer rite, but's not gravitation — it's definitely a WIK Force.

Jonny

Help, Mr. Wizard.

Vide Weak Interaction
Vide Intermediate Vector Boson

Y'see, we're all Bosons on this Bus …

Jonny

[Piperdown]

Actually, yer rite, but's not gravitation — it's definitely a WIK Force.

Jonny

Help, Mr. Wizard.

Summary of the Attack Sites Issue, as it stands today.

Gary Weiss will do anything to flail around on wikipedia to try and prevent more than the 1,000 people who already know from seeing antisocialmedia.net

He's SPA'ing on WP in a blaze of bullets, going down shootin', and trying get everyone, more than just Guy and "Ballroom Blitz" Gerard to sing the odious song.

He's even been wooing Mongo on Mongo's intimate subpages. Whatever it takes. Sockpuppets. Delusions of ethical grandeur. Lying about your age and religion on your userpage to make your Martin Luthering seem objective.

Attack sites is all about the Gary.

And Jimbo, cuz Jimbo already did an Essjayish "I have no problem with that!" on Weiss before Essjay denials were cool.

[Derktar]

The more I look at that the more I think it's some kind of a distress signal.

Maybe the Bat Signal to attract the Caped Crusader?

Maybe....just maybe...

[blissyu2]

Wow. Note this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...l_link_addition

The first ACTUAL Proposed Remedy is to sanction Dtobias, who wasn't actually involved.

The other proposed remedies are nonsense really.

[LamontStormstar]

I can't post all the quote for some reason as the last bit makes the forum say "404 not found" when I try to post the last bit even on a separate messaget.


This is proof ArbCom is a kangaroo court. They can't take their biggest issue seriously:

Everybody involved is sent to their room with no dessert
1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go to bed half an hour early and refrain from dessert for 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Just to make clear that we're not proposing any, you know, real sanctions. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This was a rather minor editing dispute as these things go, and everybody calmed down pretty quickly. However, I think it needs to be made clear that when it is perceived that the explicit provisions of a policy are "broken" or flawed, the place to resolve that is at the policies themselves and not by removing edits carried out in accordance with the "flawed" policy. (Just that general principle, nothing aimed at any particular editor, as everyone was acting in good faith yadda yadda.)--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This sanction is subject to overruling by their mommies. *Dan T.* 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Loss of WP editing time by early bedtime is recovered by non availability of dessert. Strike proposal as having no net effect? LessHeard vanU 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing new here. Lots of cases end without editors getting their just desserts. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, per my favorite TV show being on at 9:30 tonight. You're not even my real dad. ShaleZero 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My people are the people of the dessert. - T.E. Lawrence, picking up his fork. DurovaCharge! 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
He was known to confuse the two, which is why he is so thin in his photographs.--Mantanmoreland 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, are you Shaw? LessHeard vanU 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Shaw, I'm Shaw. *Dan T.* 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody involved is sent to the desert
1.1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go into a desert for a length of time to be determined (24 hours? 40 days and 40 nights? 40 years?).
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I think taking one "s" out of "dessert" yields something that will do better for giving humility to the participants, encourage meditation about the issues involved, and, presuming that it's a desert without WiFi hotspots, will keep them from making trouble on Wikipedia for a while. *Dan T.* 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the word 'Rutabaga' is to be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia under any circumstances
2) I've heard of somebody who had a freak farming accident as a child, and just barely escaped being crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas, and as a result is traumatized by any mention of the offending vegetable. Or maybe I just made it up, but you've got to Assume Good Faith about it. Anyway, this alleged person feels personally attacked and emotionally injured every time he or she encounters the word "rutabaga", so we should err on the side of protecting the feelings of our potential editors (since this alleged person might possibly decide to become a Wikipedia editor at some indeterminate time in the future) by proactively removing anything that might cause such emotional harm. Thus, the word "rutabaga" should be banned from Wikipedia. It's possible that the application of other policies might compel the word to be used to a limited degree, like on the Rutabaga article itself (though it might be desirable to recast it using some synonym, if a suitable other word can be found), but certainly its use can be flatly banned on unrelated article pages and in user, talk, and project space. It's the least we can do to promote human decency in a common sense way.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I can't think of a better example of the degree of contempt some editors feel toward victims of stalking.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. And, once this case closes, this page should be refactored to remove the offending word in the above section. Maybe it could be replaced with a less offensive word like "pedophile". *Dan T.* 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This might very well be the most disruptive point proposal I have ever seen on an arbcom case.--MONGO 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right... it's ridiculously slanderous of the perfectly fine vegetable, rutabagas. Didn't some midwestern state pass a law banning defamation of foods? Now, if it were broccoli being proposed for a ban, I'd be all for it... that's an Attack Vegetable. *Dan T.* 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the law being passed, but I do know that whenever someone is on this website and has an agenda that is not congruent with writing encyclopedia articles and instead is more interested in tabloid nonsense, innuendo and ridiculing those that have had to deal with real life harassment as a side effect of editing here, they really do need a large dose of reality. Frankly, I think your pointed nonsense here is disruptive and about as helpful as a dead fly.--MONGO 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If the editor in question who feels traumatized by mention of the word "rutabaga" also happens to be a prominent admin here in the project, who has written much of Wikipedia's current policy, and once used a sock to vote twice in a Featured Article candidate review and then concealed that she did that during her subsequent RfA, then we should especially protect her by banning any website that mentions that word. Of course. Cla68 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I find the sneering innuendo above every bit as offensive as this contemptuous WP:POINT "proposal."--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If this proposal genuinely reflects how Dan feels about attack site links, I think we had better ban him. Seriously. This is an appalling dismissal of the very real distress - and real-world problems - that attack sites have brought to Wikipedia editors. This seeks to repudiate the entire MONGO arbitration, not just clarify the meaning and intent of not linking to attack sites. Are we expected to take anything Dan has said in this case seriously now? Is he genuinely unable to see the difference between harassment and this stupid invented illustration? I hope Dan is not serious in this, because if he is then there is pretty much no chance whatsoever that we will ever come to an agreement. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Offensive, in this context - where we are discussing attack sites that have spread on the web viscious innuendo and have defamed editors who act in good faith, who have been outed and stalked, receiving threatening leters and phone calls including threats against family members, it at best is trivial and inappropriate, and at worst offensive for trivializing the problems (which sometimes require the intervention of police) attack sites cause fellow editors. I am not saying I am sure what the solution to this problem is, but it is a serious problem and people who make light of it are, if acting in good faith, ignorant, and if they are not ignorant, then they are bullies. Dan Tobias seems to think it is funny that people are stalked and memebers of their families threatened, and they have to turn to the police. This is no joke - Tobias is just being a bully. Laughing at other people who are suffering is not funny, and to support these attack-sites is no defense of free speech, it just means you find your own sadistic amusement and entertainment more important than the physical safety of others Slrubenstein | Talk 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
While certainly engaging in an un-needed excess of sarcasm, I think that Dan was alluding to the fact that there has been unwarranted demonization of those who disagree with BADSITES and its ilk... as ably demonstrated by the responses above. The proponents of BADSITES go on about how the people opposing them 'support harassment', 'themselves engage in harassment by linking to attack sites', 'are cruel and insensitive to people under attack', 'should be banned', et cetera. It's unjustified and improper... all of it. Nobody is saying that we should not care about and try to protect our users, and the people claiming otherwise have so lost sight of 'assume good faith' that they may need a map and long days of travel to find their way back. What is disputed is the particular method of protecting our users being suggested... both in that it does not IMO achieve that goal and causes damage of its own. The anger and denunciations are understandable from the mindset of, 'we need to have this to protect people'... but AGF should lead to the understanding that the alternate view is 'this does not protect anyone and it makes a horrific mess'. --CBD 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
CBD, my point is that these experience of stalked and violated editors is what is at stake here. Now, if BADSITES was an inappropriate or ineffective way to deal with that, so be it. If people's proposals about attack sites are not the right way to handle this problem, so be it. But let's have constructive suggestions about better ways to deal with this problem. Let's focus on the problem that needs solving and not failed attempts to address the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What you are describing is a community discussion to work out new policies on privacy and user protection. This is an arbitration case... something which specifically does not create new policies. We are here for the explicit purpose of 'focusing on what went wrong'... precisely what you say we should not be doing. One of the things which has gone wrong is that proponents of BADSITES have violated civility and AGF in attacking people who disagree with them and think the policy is being abused. Dan's parody of that behaviour above was not the most polite way of raising the issue, but sadly it was an accurate parallel of the reality. --CBD 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Granting your point, surely you can see a difference between finding out what went wrong in a constructive way, versus an unconstructive and even meanspirited way. I would have no objection to a harsh analysis of what went wrong if I thought it were constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Tue 18th September 2007, 2:42am

[Jonny Cache]

Wow. Note this:

WP:R4Arbitrariness/Attack Sites/Workslop#User:Dtobias is placed on Prohibition & can't buy any more beer

The first ACTUAL Proposed Remedy is to sanction Dtobias, who wasn't actually involved.

The other proposed remedies are nonsense really.

WOW — He's really in Utopia (= Noplace) now …

Jonny

[Robster]

They've tossed DennyColt under the bus, officially... well, at least Possibly Musical Elinor has... from the Dan Tobias Is The Eighteenth Amendment section of the above comic opera...

What makes you think he's on the opposite side? It's perfectly possible to set up an account to act excessively on one side, in order to discredit it. Remember DennyColt. - ElinorD (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...and yet, they continue to pursue this asinine policy that was mostly written by someone who they are now claiming is a counteragent?

Is there anyone who ISN'T getting a headache from this reality-bending?

[dtobias]

The proposal to sanction me was posted by a now-blocked troll (who actually put in his user page a request to be blocked... honestly!), and is not being taken seriously even by the clique people who are out to get me.

[Somey]

Attack sites is all about the Gary.

If only more people realized just how true that is. I might go so far as to say that NONE of this would be happening at all, were it not for Gary Weiss. (And Chip Berlet too, of course.)

Think of all the time wasted!

[BobbyBombastic]

For anyone who may have missed it, El C seems to be calling for Cyde's head.

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

exhausting the proletariat?

Something else sort of funny, try googling "attack site" or "attack sites" and see what comes up. It doesn't seem to be the same thing that some are attempting to ban. I dunno though, I'll let you connect the dots on that one.

On an unrelated note, while searching what WP pages have the term "attack site", I found a male Wikipedian living in the WR motherland of Iowa that seems to be a traitor to the great cause.

[GlassBeadGame]

The proposal to sanction me was posted by a now-blocked troll (who actually put in his user page a request to be blocked... honestly!), and is not being taken seriously even by the clique people who are out to get me.

Perhaps a proposal to impose some trivial punishment upon User:Dtobias, pro forma, and always without support, could be made a ritual part of all ArbCom processes. Sort of cleansing ritual. Referred to simple as "The Dtobias", as in: "Who is putting forward the Dtobias in this matter?" It could also be used a technical defense as in "This matter is dismissed for lack of a Dtobias."

[Somey]

On an unrelated note, while searching what WP pages have the term "attack site", I found a male Wikipedian living in the WR motherland of Iowa that seems to be a traitor to the great cause.

Oh yeah, him.



Eh, we don't like to talk about him much around here. Last I heard he had his own nightclub on the South Side, but it wasn't exactly raking in the Big Bucks, if you know what I'm sayin'.

[Jonny Cache]

I think we have to give Durova some kinda prize — I do have this LuvaLump™ gathering dust in the nowherehouse that it looks like our last "Nostry" winner is never going to claim — for coming up with the best 2-word description of Wikipedia ever:

Procedural Blanking

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 18th September 2007, 10:42am

[KamrynMatika]

A few more abitrators besides the ever-transparent Fred have weighed in on the proposed decision. Kirill Lokshin (one of my favourite arbs, come to think of it) seems to be fighting the good fight, whereas FloNight seems to be advocating a hardcore ban of every link that contains 'negative information' no matter what.

Particularly interesting:

8) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Wikipedia policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the 'right message' in FloNight's book is that if your Wikipedia abuse is discussed on external sites, you get a free pass?

Again:

11) Wikipedia is a project to develop a free-content encyclopedia. While the community is of profound importance, its desires cannot substantially override this goal.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As worded sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite scary really.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Kirill Lokshin (one of my favourite arbs, come to think of it) seems to be fighting the good fight, whereas FloNight seems to be advocating a hardcore ban of every link that contains 'negative information' no matter what.

Yes. Kirill once admonished Cberlet for "soapboxing," making him the only arb who seems to have noticed it.

[BobbyBombastic]

Particularly interesting:

8) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Wikipedia policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the 'right message' in FloNight's book is that if your Wikipedia abuse is discussed on external sites, you get a free pass?

(bolding mine)

Actually, that seems to be pretty much how it goes. That dictates my conduct here to the extent that I have refrained from supporting people on WP here or even raising certain issues because there is a group that is inclined to dismiss issues entirely once they are tainted by the "scoundrels of Wikipedia Review". It is a reaction lacking in any reasonable thought and to be quite honest it made me realize that this is just a symptom of a greater sickness.

edit: But even the "good editors" who realize this symptom and sickness share the blame for all this disruption, I suppose. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the vocal minority of people contributing to Wikipedia are being catered to. The "good editors" are hoping it runs its course and it does not interfere with their activities. I don't see that happening, but go ahead and keep hoping that if it makes you feel good.

[Piperdown]

Particularly interesting:

8) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Wikipedia policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the 'right message' in FloNight's book is that if your Wikipedia abuse is discussed on external sites, you get a free pass?

(bolding mine)

Actually, that seems to be pretty much how it goes. That dictates my conduct here to the extent that I have refrained from supporting people on WP here or even raising certain issues because there is a group that is inclined to dismiss issues entirely once they are tainted by the "scoundrels of Wikipedia Review". It is a reaction lacking in any reasonable thought and to be quite honest it made me realize that this is just a symptom of a greater sickness.

edit: But even the "good editors" who realize this symptom and sickness share the blame for all this disruption, I suppose. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the vocal minority of people contributing to Wikipedia are being catered to. The "good editors" are hoping it runs its course and it does not interfere with their activities. I don't see that happening, but go ahead and keep hoping that if it makes you feel good.

FloNight is one of the keystone cops that lets Gary be Gary.

Once again, the way the arbs (because it's all about Jimbo looking good, and the Weiss-Cla68 affair made Jimbo look very bad) vote is all about the Gary.

[Yehudi]

But even the "good editors" who realize this symptom and sickness share the blame for all this disruption, I suppose. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the vocal minority of people contributing to Wikipedia are being catered to. The "good editors" are hoping it runs its course and it does not interfere with their activities. I don't see that happening, but go ahead and keep hoping that if it makes you feel good.

I bet the majority of good editors don't have a clue what's going on.

[SqueakBox]

Attack sites is all about the Gary.

If only more people realized just how true that is. I might go so far as to say that NONE of this would be happening at all, were it not for Gary Weiss. (And Chip Berlet too, of course.)

Think of all the time wasted!

Perhaps Gary (my fellow surname person) was Denny?

[Derktar]

Ya gotta love Fred

Yes, the sun rises in the East, Fred Bauder 20:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

4 minutes later his response to another section.

The sun rises in the east, Fred Bauder 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of an allegation derived from an external attack site engaged in harassment is unacceptable. If there is truth, the matter will, in due course, be raised by other witnesses. Fred Bauder 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right, truth only exists on Wikipedia! Oh and if there is discussion of a problem that wouldn't have come to light had an "attack site" not brought it up, what happens then?

Wikipedia is a project to develop a free-content encyclopedia. While the community is of profound importance, its desires cannot substantially override this goal.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As worded sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. A house built upon sand will not stand. Solidarity is the foundation of all collaborative projects Fred Bauder 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah people, I mean come on, we aren't really writing an encyclopedia here, we can put that on the back burner.

What a joke. Kirill is a voice of reason over there, and what a surprise, he's part of the Military History Wikiproject, one of the only Wikiprojects that actually turns out rational, well written work. Dare I say one of the few wikiprojects with organization and focus. For Wikipedia's sake I hope he isn't run off for daring to stand against the tide.

This post has been edited by Derktar: Tue 18th September 2007, 9:15pm