Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

message: ===Statement by David D.===
This comment from MONGO in the Kelly Martin RfC did appear out of the blue. I participated on that talk page and it did seem unwarranted at the time. I have had no interaction with rootology, although I did support the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica and from this perspective I would say I am neutral. I did noticed rootology was very keen to keep it alive and from memory, I would say it bordered on pestering. Nevertheless MONGO's accusations may well need to be tempered. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Case comments

message: This comment from MONGO in the Kelly Martin RfC did appear out of the blue. I participated on that talk page and it did seem unwarranted at the time. I have had no interaction with rootology, although I did support the deletion of the Encyclopedia damatica and from this perspective I would say I am neutral. I did noticed rootology was very keen to keep it alive and from memory, I would say it bordered on pestering. Nevertheless MONGO's accusations may well need to be tempered. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by David D.

message: Rootology and Badlydrawnjeff are members of Encyclopedia damatica first, members of Wikipedia second.  It is thus understandable where all of the wikidamatica around here is coming from.  --Cyde Weys 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Cyde Weys

message: I'm not sure if this is a good test case or not, but any additional guidance ArbCom can offer on what constitutes "wikistalking" will probably be helpful.  TheronJ 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by TheronJ

message: Encyclopedia damatica is basically a site where most people there are a hivemind.  To me it is a cult.  They all appear to act alike and think alike over there.
Wikistalking I believe is only against the rules if done for harassment and wikistalking is very common on wikipedia where about everyone does this. Anomo 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved party Anomo

message: I'm a complete outsider to this thing, but saw a lot of it on WP:AN (or was it WP:ANI?). I stronly urge our dear arbitrators to accept the case, because increased stalking and tendentious editing from some editors that come here to wage edit wars and not writing an encyclopedia deserve a reponse from the ArbCom. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

message: It seems implausible that Rootology's interest in national parks and 9/11 conspiracy theories is independent of Mongo's work in those areas, and Rootology's interest in ED. This request for arbitration looks like another exercise in time-wasting drama. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]]

message: I have long had concerns about MONGO; my impression is that while he's generally a good admin he has a tendency to lose perspective from time to time and become overly emotionally involved.  Rootology has twigged my trouble meter almost from the time I first encountered him.  I think that Wikipedia would benefit from a thorough examination of the conduct of at least these two editors, and possibly others involved in this case, and therefore encourage the Committee to accept this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]]

message: To begin with, let me clarify that I am not in any way directly involved with the matter(s) that have led to this request for arbitration being filed. I have, however, been involved with MONGO in several disputes, arising mainly out of my actions here. There ensued a long series of blocks and unblocks (most of them imposed on me by MONGO), after which I eventually changed my trollish ways (and I admit here with due remorse that some of my actions were intolerably inconsiderate) and became, if not the most valuable editor on Wikipedia, atleast a policy-abiding editor. The credit for this change in me goes to those who mentored me in those troubled times-Hamster Sandwich and Fred Bauder among many others, including (in a sense) MONGO himself. It is for due to the fact that I have had a rather long association with MONGO that I believe that my views about this Administrator might be of some use to those hearing this case. In my dealings with him, I found that he was (perhaps) not as neutral as an Administrator should be and often lets his point-of-view interfere in his actions as an Administrator. He often accused me of being an "anti-American bigot" and repeatedly threatened me with "month long blocks" for violating policy by being a "bigot". He also seemed to have (in the words of a participant in this case) certain "cronies" who aided him in his activities. I personally found him to be overly harsh with me in his Administrative activities, possibly as a result of my "anti-American bigotry". I also found/find his habit of protecting the talk-pages of users he blocks rather disturbing. I am not sure if the rather confrontational attitude MONGO assumes is becoming of an Administrator like him, and, as an editor who has been on the wrong side of his blocks on several occassions, I must state that the way he carried out his Administrative actions, described by one user as "power-trips", was more instrumental in adding fuel to the fire (of an already angry, blocked user) rather than reforming the said user. The fact that I changed my ways within a few weeks under the influence of other Administrators is testament to this fact. In MONGO's defence however, he is a valuable contributor to this website and himself lifted the indefinite block he had placed on me after I proved to him my good intentions, which is perhaps an (albeit somewhat isolated) instance of him being benevolent in his dealings with problem users. I am of the view that for MONGO to be relieved of his Administrative access for some period of time would allow him to get a more balanced perspective of his actions here and would be in his best interests as well as those of Wikipedia. Prasi90 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to MONGO, let me clarify to all interested parties that to judge this Administrator's behaviour based solely on his conduct towards me would not be fair since he has (I admit) had to put up with a lot of trolling from me during my "darkest hours" here. Going by that yardstick, I would rate his interactions with me as "good" and would (in all fairness) not be in favour of having MONGO de-sysoped but would prefer if he were to become just a little more polite from now onwards. Prasi90 07:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That vandalism was not done by me, it was perhaps someone else using the same IP who was responsible for it-a large number of IPs from the same range as mine seem to be editting that page. In any case, the type of vandalism (nonsense editting) is not characteristic of my past (problematic) history-which mostly involved trolling and more pointed vandalism than the kind seem on the Halloween page. In any case, I want to put my past history behind me and move on. My opinion is that though MONGO is a very valuable contributor and one of the more neutral/fair Administrators, he should make a slight change in his attitude toward his fellow users. Prasi90 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly concede that your IP has probably changed since we last had communication.--MONGO 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Prasi90 

message: Arbitrators should be examine the block log and the Rfc that was filed about Prasi90's behavior that led to the long term blocks. Indeed, I did unblock Prasi90 after he promised to behave himself, and I see that since he was unblocked by me, he has indeed edited constructively.--MONGO 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That vandalism was not done by me, it was perhaps someone else using the same IP who was responsible for it-a large number of IPs from the same range as mine seem to be editting that page. In any case, the type of vandalism (nonsense editting) is not characteristic of my past (problematic) history-which mostly involved trolling and more pointed vandalism than the kind seem on the Halloween page. In any case, I want to put my past history behind me and move on. My opinion is that though MONGO is a very valuable contributor and one of the more neutral/fair Administrators, he should make a slight change in his attitude toward his fellow users. Prasi90 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly concede that your IP has probably changed since we last had communication.--MONGO 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Prasi90's comments

message: Because Mongo's block of SoftPaleColors was not related to the Encyclopedia damatica fracas that spawned this case, I have moved his statement here to the talk page.  SoftPaleColors is not a party to the present dispute, and this case is not an excuse for a MONGO pile-on.  SoftPale's concerns can be better addressed elsewhere.  If the parties feel I have erred here, I stand ready to be corrected. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the Worst Sockpuppet Ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by SoftPaleColors

message: I recently deleted a page thinking that it was a routine cleanup of an overlooked AFD/DRV decision.  I have since learned that it was temporarily undeleted in order to support this case.  Please accept my apologies if I inconvenienced anyone.  Please let me know if the page is still needed and I will restore it.  Rossami (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of a page which had been temporarily restored as evidence 

message: I, too, am a bit late to this, but I should probably give my two cents.  First, let me say that MONGO is a great contributor to Wikipedia and I acknowledge him for that.  Unfortunately, he made some brash decisions in the past few months.  MONGO is one of those cases where I would have to say that the ends don't justify his means.  Let's start aways back during his first RfC regarding the WTC article.  He blocked a user he was involved in a content dispute with.  And when it was taken up at WP:AN and WP:RFC, he defended himself by saying that, paraphrased (I'll go look it up in a bit) "two other users agreed with the block so I did the right thing."  It doesn't matter how many users agreed to the block.  Admins should never block to gain an edge in a content dispute, even if the entire Wikipedia community agrees that the user be blocked.  What he should have done was contact outside help, particularly from the Meditation Cabal or someone else.  What I would have done if I were an admin and saw what was going on was block both parties for WP:3RR violations.  He called the edits by his opponents vandalism, even though they were made in good faith.  Honestly, I feel that this was a situation that got out of hand by both parties.
Then there's the whole ED thing.  Personally, I think the article was right to be deleted (although I think a blurb in LiveJournal or something is acceptable because notability within a context has been established there).  However, I should say that some events leading up to the AFD were uncalled for.  ED did something that I don't condone (I don't condone anything they do, I'm an Uncyclopedian) in personally attacking MONGO and displaying it on the front page.  However, MONGO responded the wrong way.  Instead of taking it up with ED editors and ED admins, he completely messed with the ED article here, removing links to ED and other from the article, and getting many more people involved than needed to be.  He even won an "ED sucks" barnstar for his messing with the article (it wasn't vandalism because his edits were made in good faith).
I agree with JZG that MONGO wasn't uncivil to the degree some people say he was.  He HAS, however, abused his admin privalages a bit.  I personally think WP:ROGUE should be stopped and admins should act constructively at all times.  I know MONGO is a constructive admin who has made some bad decisions in the past few months.  He should not let anything get to him, though.
I personally say that we should all just leave this behind us.  All parties broke the rules here.
I should also remind everyone not to judge editors by their activity over at ED.  We are not to discriminate against editors based on where they spend their free time, and we must always assume good faith unless there is vandalism.  Several ED editors have made great contributions here, and those should not be pushed aside by the fact that they edit in a place that is very unpopular and controversial around here.  Not every ED editor is responsible for the slander they make against us. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I have no right to remove a link to their mainpage while it has an attack aricle on a Wikipedian posted there? Let me clarify what I think about the ED website, outside of their articles that attack wikipedians. They routinely support anti-semetic, homophobic and extemely rascist remarks all over their website. Many of the editors there actively engage in this and I think the wesbite is complete garbage. Lastly, so I can try and assume good faith from you...please remove the incorrect statement about me editing at unencyclopedia...I have not once edited that website. Making gross accusations against me here without proof is something I am not going to put up with.--MONGO 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that.  There was, however, an editor named MONGO trolling at Uncyc. Maybe he was just an ED troll? Sir Crazyswordsman 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I agree about ED being garbage.  They are what one would call a "shock humor" site, where the editors write insults at people and get kicks out of our reactions.  And I should tell you that shock humor isn't funny (which is why I go to Uncyclopedia, which is NOT shock humor). And frankly, like I said, this is something that pretty much evolved into an all out war.  I don't support any sanctions agains you, but I must ask you to keep your head held high and to keep your cool when it comes to these things.  It's best to ignore it so stuff like this doesn't happen. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Crazyswordsman|Crazyswordsman]]

message: I am a victim of this site and wish to join in this. They have taken my personal pictures and art and posted it without my permission. I have offered up a DMCA and then they posted my personal name and address on the site off the dmca. Furthermore, they countered the dmca with some address in the Middle East, knowing I am disabled and unable to afford the fees to file against them. Furthermore they have led others to stalk me and say they are going to rape me. 
http://tawneelynne.livejournal.com/399332.html
http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Tawneelynne
--Tawneelynne 02:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best wikipedia can do is put the domain on the spam blacklist like wikia has done. Anomo 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement By TawneeLynne 

message: This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. 
and  are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia damatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia damatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. 
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk,  FloNight 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO]]

message: Moved from RFAr main page:
Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed?  See here for full list of links.  Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs.  Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.--Konst.ableTalk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED]]

message: :If this page is to be used in policy proposals or in policy itself eg Wikipedia:Attack sites could not a copy of this page giving the details of the arbcom decisions and removing the mention of any individual editors be created so thatbn this page doesnt need to be mentioned in policy or proposed policy pages. Some editors have been permanently banned as a result of the decisions here but surely that is not information that should be linked to in a policy or proposed policy page as it is unfair on the banned editors, SqueakBox 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy and this page

message: Is there a technical difference in the attempt vs. the act of publishing private information about Wikipedians? —AldeBaer 14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I publish a name for you that you have not published on Wikipedia yourself (unless you're made made clear elsewhere that you are Wikipedia's AldeBaer and also that named person), it's a violation of policy even if I've come up with the wrong name. The point is whether I was trying to out you. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks. —AldeBaer 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I publish (we're talking about publishing websites, right? If any reliable source ever publishes your name, your privacy is essentially done with, isn't it?) on a website of mine that the person behind the account SlimVirgin is probably Genghis Khan (or let's say Daniel Brandt, for some more flavour), it'd be such a pathetic attempt that I'd have a hard time accepting it as a real attack. The question remains where exactly to draw the line. —AldeBaer 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the difficulty and I'm curious to know why people need to pin this down so exactly. The solution is to use common sense and not attack fellow editors, then there'll be no need to draw the line. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see this pinned down exactly, so I know what I can and what I can't link to. I would never intentionally link to attack content, let alone in order to attack another user. But you yourself provided a perfect reason for an exact rule, when you warned me about linking to WR again when I had linked to a subpage without any attacks. According to Fred Bauder, there should be no problem with that. According to you, there is. Hence the need for an exact rule. —AldeBaer 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the ''attempt'' vs. the ''act'' of publishing private information

message: Per this ruling, is this good-faith edit grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for this? Kamryn Matika 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. Kamryn Matika 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification (June-September 2007) 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sept 2007

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

message: As the committee is no doubt aware Encyclopaedia Dramatica is presently up on Deletion Review, in the form of a new draft article (User:Shii/ED). This editorial process is constrained by findings and rulings from the MONGO case, and may well have outlived their usefulness. The case turned on the harrassment of MONGO by other users, many of whom were connected with ED. While lamentable, this shouldn't have any bearing on our ability to cover or not cover a topic: it is not necessary to endorse the existence of thing in documenting it. Our policies demand an honest editorial debate on the matter, but the broadness of remedy # 1 and the obvious personal umbrage taken by numerous editors, including at least one sitting arbitrator, precludes such a debate.
FoF # 13 states that the article was deleted because "the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source." Arbcom isn't supposed to make content rulings, but we sometimes sneak them in anyway through obiter dicta like that one. Real challenges have been raised as to whether this is really the case anymore, and Shii's draft article does not fit such a description. This, more than anything else, suggests that the principles which undergird the case are no longer operative.
I would request that remedy # 1 be clarified either to refer only to articles concerning specific Wikipedia users, or revoked altogether. Most things on ED aren't suitable for this wiki anyway because of our "vast policy differences." In my view the committee overreached and prejudiced editorial decisions in drafting this decision. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] 

message: Hey all...my deepest appreciation for informing me about this discussion! Seriously, an arbitration case I was named in, that appears to be on the threshold of having its major motions and remedies eliminated or severely altered and NO ONE BOTHERS TO LET ME KNOW! As can be seen by the DRV on this article, there does not seem to be a community backed consensus to restore the article that has been developed in another editor's userspace. ...so what brings all this up? Well, let me inform you of what I know. Firstly, over a dozen of our editors resigned due to the ongoing harassment posted about them at that website...Do we need to be so inclusive we risk losing editors just so we can be such a compendium of "knowledge"...I think not. The website is of only marginal notability at best...at best. Let me repeat my first point...I know of at least a dozen editors who quit editing here because of the stuff posted on that website. I know this because after I went through what I did with the people affiliated with that website, I received over a dozen calls for aide...at one point the possibility of suing them was considered. Phaedriel was probably the best known editor to abandon this project...thanks in no small part to that website. Second point...IF we recreate the article, then ultimately someone will link to that website...that is where my fight started. They made their MONGO article "featured" and posted it on their mainpage...I repeatedly removed those links from our article on that website and was combated by a series of trolls and other editors who for some bizarre reason did not understand that I was not going to allow them or that website to libel me via this one...I am not a pedophile as the people there have written. Phaedriel is not the things they claim about her, nor are the other "wikipedos" that they have listed, accurately depicted. For the record, the article they have on me is far from the worst...very far from it. But I am here on wikipedia to write articles and to protect our editors from harassment...I cannot do that if we, as a website, are going to turn a blind eye to this major issue just so we can be "all inclusive", especially when we are talking about a website of extremely marginal notability, that attacks our contributors, and yes, slanders and libels them. Many complain that we, right here on Wikipedia, also slander and libel people, especially in our bios...that is a serious issue, but we have the power here to do something about that. We do not have the power to make adjustments to the same (and generally far worse) slander and libel that ED presents. But we can control whether we import that nonsense here. There are still millions of articles we can write...what the heck makes having an article on ED so important? How many articles do we yet lack about various insect species, birds, plants, glaciers, people, events, places? Maybe the committee would be better off telling the dramaqueens that have started to proliferate this website to start writing articles and stop wasting our server space with their generally worthless opinions, than spending so much energy rewriting an arbitration case in which the situation hasn't changed...that website still lacks notability, it still libels our contributors, it will ultimately lead to further problems...and further time wasted here, in this particular forum. Lastly, I do have other things I can do with my time than edit here...my life is valuable to me and the friends I have made here on this website are important to me...let's not be trendy and get limp wristed about this matter...we have an obligation to do all we can to make editing here a pleasant experience...not one where we have to look over our shoulder wondering why some creep has decided that he can link to ED and attack our contributors in the process. Yes, I know, the committee does not make content rulings in most cases...well maybe you should in this matter and do so with the spirit of respect and in the interest of facilitating encyclopedia writing and the writers who contribute here and ensuring they have the ability to spend their valuable personal time in peace as much as possible.--MONGO 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 

message: The ill-conceived original MONGO decision was an unwarranted attempt on the part of ArbCom to make policy, and has been continually cited ever since by a small clique that is intent on imposing censorship of links that hurt their feelings.  This BADSITES concept, a really bad idea, has been resoundingly rejected by the community as a whole every time it has come up.  It's time to drive a stake through its heart once and for all. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Dtobias]] 

message: I note that the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica recently closed as "keep deleted", which is a fair enough close. I did notice one further edit, possibly as a result of this, or maybe not. Would the arbitration committee be able to comment on whether "recreation of the article" covers Encyclopedia Dramatica being mentioned at all in Wikipedia articles? ie. either in passing in other articles, or as a paragraph about the website, or as a section or entry in a list article? I raised this possibility at the DRV, but it didn't generate much discussion (possibly I arrived at the DRV too late for many people to even read what I posted there). I noted there that a sentence mentioning Encyclopedia Dramatica had existed at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous criticism for at least 5.5 months with seemingly no objections. Shortly after the deletion review finished, an IP editor removed the sentence in question from the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article. I have raised the issue at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Satire sentence removed. My question is, since that was to my knowledge the only reference in any Wikipedia article to Encyclopedia Dramatica, are we trying to remove any and all references to Encyclopedia Dramatica from all articles? If not, then are editors free to add "subarticle" level of material on Encyclopedia Dramatica to other Wikipedia articles where relevant? Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit in question has now been reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 

message: The article about Encyclopedia Dramatica was recently recreated after this DRV. My question is simple: Are we allowed to link to that wiki (in whatever form) at Encyclopedia Dramatica? It's a content decision, yes, but since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO states quite clearly that "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia", it would be best if the Arbitration Committee would clarify whether that ruling is true for the article about ED, too. Can we link to that site, or aren't we even allowed to mention its URL? Or is it up to the community to decide whether we want a link or not? --Conti|✉ 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Conti|Conti]] 

message: Please comment on this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by WAS 4.250 

message: As someone who just stumbled into this, the dispute is very odd.  Lately some have objected to the placing of a live link, and even a dead or commented-out link, from the article about this content site to the site's main page.  Nearly every other notable website / service or company has a routine link to the main site, either in its infobox or in the external links section.  In this case, the company in question is blacklisted by arbitration ruling because a determined group of people were using links to derogatory material there as a way of harassing a prominent Wikipedia editor.  The purpose of the earlier ruling did not seem to be to deny the the existence of the site, or to censor encyclopedic coverage of notable things in the world that happened to reflect negatively on Wikipedia - more specifically, the earlier ruling was not an attempt to make the content decision on whether such things should be covered.  Rather, it was merely to stop the harassment and use of Encyclopedia Dramatica as an attack site.  To prohibit a routine WP:EL in this case, would seem to be an unintended and inadvertent consequence of the ruling.  There are a lot of websites in the world, some that are vulgar, frivolous, and offensive (some cases in point: Fucked Company, Max Hardcore, Aryan Nations).  If we cover them we link to their home page.  To turn up our nose in this one case because the site is a parody of Wikipedia, would seem petty and censorious.  Certainly, anyone can type these words into google and find the link, so we are not hiding their existence - just making a statement that we don't like them so we won't link to them. Wikidemo (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I don't see any contributory infringement issue.  We can link to home pages of sites when there is known infringement somewhere on the site.  If we avoided a main page link every time we knew there was likely infringement somewhere on the site we couldn't link to youtube, google, Facebook, Myspace, etc.  Probably couldn't link to Wikipedia either. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FT2's analysis below is eloquent and persuasive.  Regarding the concerns that an external link may be gamed, how about simply providing that we may link to the main page of their site, but that the link may be removed summarily (and possibly temporarily) any time ED posts blatant copyright infringement or an attack on Wikipedians on that page?  If this becomes burdensome or a cat-and-mouse game the community will grow tired of it and remove the link for good; if things settle down and ED goes about its many other pursuits on its main page we will link to them as we would to any other controversial site.  Establishing a firm rule that one particular site is forbidden to wikipedians is akin to prior restraint in the wider world.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by (uninvolved) Wikidemo 

message: ArbCom, by its own admission, does not make policy or intervene in content disputes.  This ill-conceived decision of theirs has been responsible for much mischief and drama ever since it was issued, including being the genesis of the BADSITES non-policy.  Now that the original context of the decision -- the state of affairs after the ED article was deleted and wasn't expected to be recreated any time soon -- is no longer in effect, neither does it make any sense to enforce the decision on links specifically in the article itself, where making any variance from the normal policy of linking to websites about which articles are concerned (a policy that is followed even with "hate sites" like Stormfront (website)) is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Sceptre: Yuck, what a mess... that previous "ArbCom clarification" is as clear as mud, with arbitrators opposing for a variety of contradictory reasons, ranging from wanting to maintain a flat ban on links to the site, to wanting to have links dealt with by editors under normal policy without any special exceptions, to regarding any decision on the issue to be premature before an ED article actually exists.  Well, the article exists now, so they can't dodge the responsibility of coming to a coherent position, even if that position is to bounce the whole issue back to the community to be decided as a content issue as normal. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Re Durova: Your theory that it's invalid to link to anything in ED, including to its home page from the article on the site, because the site allegedly contains copyright violations, is a novel one with little support in either prior Wikipedia policy actions or case law; all prior cites that I know of concerned linking directly to infringing material for the specific purpose of making the specific material accessible, not to a generic site link that might happen to let a user eventually find some unknown infringement.  I think you're just fishing for alternative justifications to prevent links to that site after earlier justifications have been discredited. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Re Hu12: I'm going to call "bullshit" on your assertion that ED exists for the "sole and primary purpose of promoting co-ordinated vandalism and personal attacks on Wikipedians".  That actually seems to be a fairly minor purpose of theirs, subsidiary to their main goals of producing a (tasteless and vulgar) parody encyclopedia, as well as documenting Internet memes and drama in a semi-serious way. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 

message: This is an excellent opportunity for the community to review and decide upon whether any content/editorial decisions are within the authority of the Arbitration Committee. The AC's response in regards to such a test case could go significantly towards any community-mandated or enforced Arbitration reform, and the authority the community (as the body that empowers the AC) has over the Committee. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm sure. The Arbitration Committee can say only they can change their policy page, but they still can't do anything the community does not support. It's really that simple. As Jimmy Wales (who himself only has "power" because we allow it as he is neither the owner of Wikipedia and just one more board member) turned over control of the AC to itself (evidenced by their ability to overrule him) and the fact that an AC without the community willing to enforce it is toothless and irrelevant, yes. My simple point is that anything they do, which is normally spot-on, has to be accepted by the community to have authority. The AC members themselves in the IRC case talk page/proposed decision confirmed this to me, including Brad and Jpgordon. They have significant power, but it is finite and tightly defined power. As the question of the AC making policy or content/editorial decisions comes up regularly, this is a perfect time to see what they think of that. If the community signs off on them having editorial/content control, swell. If they don't sign off... well, then the AC can't do that. They answer to the community, not the other way around. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Lawrence 

message: Lawerence, are you sure? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by NVS 

message: The AC voted 1/7/1 to support an exception for a link in the ED article only two months ago. Sceptre (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Sceptre 

message: It is manifestly outside the remit of the ArbCom to make a decision on policy or on content.  I would urge the committee to withdraw their previous statement (as posted by Sceptre above) and leave the matter up to a normal interpretation of the rules.  By being involved in this question at all, ArbCom is exerting an influence over and above that which a dispute resolution body should have.  Martinp23 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps FT2's comments would be better placed on the talk page of the article in question as part of a community discussion into whether the link should be included.  Not in what is evolving into an "ArbCom statement of policy". Martinp23 17:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Martinp23 

message: This request for clarification is largely irrelevant. The previous ruling, as applied to this article, is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. ArbCom is a dispute resolution body that answers to the community, and NPOV and NOTCENSORED are an expression of community concensus embodied in official policy. Should ArbCom continue to deny the use of such links in this situation, they would be overstepping their authority and should be ignored. Z00r (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Z00r 

message: Per WP:COPYRIGHT#Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).  This isn't mere theory: see "Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church", which hinges on a contributory copyright infringement link.  Currently this Wikinews story is on the front page of Slashdot.
It would exceed the Committee's mandate to authorize an outgoing link to ED, which practices extensive copyright infringement.  This is a matter for the law and for Foundation counsel, if such a proposal is to be entertained at all.  Given the current ongoing news it is highly unlikely that it would get anywhere. DurovaCharge! 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to delink all outbound links to Youtube, Geocities, Wikileaks, and any other user-edited site then (including slashdot, which has linked in the story and comments you linked to the Mormon material. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence, threaded discussion is inappropriate here.  And I do take out large numbers of contributory copyvio links (check my contribution history).  This is a matter for Mike Godwin, not for ArbCom and certainly not for random volunteers. DurovaCharge! 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Durova|Durova]] 

message: Just a reminder that the involved editors should simply apply the WP:BADLINKS guideline here, which represents the end point of community consensus regarding that old ArbCom suggestion on links in the MONGO case. -- Kendrick7talk 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]</sup> 

message: This is beyond the ArbCom's remit. The ArbCom is here to deal with serious violations of policy by users, not to formulate policy itself. The community is sovereign in this decision, not the judiciary. Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Exxolon|Exxolon]] ([[User talk:Exxolon|talk]])

message: It seems odd to me that ED continues to be the exception based off such bizarre rulings as it contains copyright material (most websites linked to on wikipedia too) or it insults people on the internet (which hasn't prevented linking to, for example, Something Awful) or at the extreme that its a wikipedia terrorist website (seriously, trying to sweep it under the rug and demonise it just lowers your position, not to mention the claims are spurious and incorrect). In addition to all of this is that by its own description ArbCom does not make decisions of content, and this clearly is a decision about article content making it a violation of ArbCom's own practice. 
All of this leads me to the conclusion that WP:NPOV is being thrown out the window because people can't keep their emotions in check in this specific case alone because it affects wikipedia editors. Wikipedia in the past has offended many religions, races, countries and politically inclined people through its content that we have stood behind because of NPOV and resistance to censorship. To become the angry mob that we resist in every other debate over content because it relates to wikipedia is hypocritical and largely indefensible. –– Lid(Talk) 12:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornography is the most recent example of wikipedia offending others but standing up against them. –– Lid(Talk) 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Lid|Lid]]

message: I'm somewhat confused by the clarification as it now stands.  Kirill indicates that this is a matter for the community to decide.  FT2 starts out saying that it should be a community matter, but then indicates that he thinks that the prohibition on links to ED should stand as is.  Then James F. says he agrees with both of them and, given their apparent disagreement, I don't know what that means.  Because of the highly contentious nature of this decision, I think that an unambiguous statement is needed here as to whether there is an Arbcom prohibition on linking to this website in the article about that website, or if this is to be considered a standard content decision to be determined by community consensus.  Thank you.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We ourselves, as a committee, often have divergent views and need to consider how our own consensus goes as well. As time's passed and the community handles more cases, we get far more difficult and contentious ones, so you'll regularly find Arbitration cases that go into novel territory. In time something unambiguous will develop from it, so to speak, if it remains an issue. (If it isn't an issue, then that's an answer too.) Cases like this often have a period where you have to see what happens. Hope that helps somewhat.  FT2 (Talk | email) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Thanks for the response. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Chunky Rice|Chunky Rice]]

message: The article was ultimately deleted after a long battle I had regarding linking to it. I imagine that others, maybe even myself again will have to endure the same nonsense if we allow links to that website...namely, I was trolled via email and my usertalk that an article about MONGO had been created there...later, when they made the MONGO article their "featured article" of the day...I was further harassed by anons and others. I removed links to that article to protect myself from offsite harassment...I guess I don't like being called a pedophile.--MONGO 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:MONGO|MONGO]]

message: No thanks. Just 'cause we have links to other hate sites doesn't mean we should have links to all. I wonder what the motivations would be to even link to it....are we going to gain some earth shattering encyclopedic revelation? I think a careful review of NOT is in order.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by MONGO 

message: I don't think it's fair to compare ED to Wikipediocracy or Goatse. Further, if someone wants to go there and we don't have a link, I imagine they can type ED into the browser and it will pop up. While Wikipedia isn't censored, that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards to sites like ED, especially when not doing so isn't that big of an effect on people reading the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Sir Joseph

message: The project as we know it today has very little resemblance to what it looked like in 2006. I think today's Wikipedia is much better at handling disruption and objectionable links at the community level than it was back then. With that said, I don't see any reason why this remedy should remain in place. As a content issue, I believe that it should fall to the editing community's consensus on how to handle links to ED. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by OhKayeSierra

message: I agree that this is something the present-day community is capable of handling on its own, and there isn't any need for ArbCom to remain in the picture. I think rather than removing it entirely though, the best thing to do would be to convert it into something modern - perhaps something like: "Links to and/or content sourced from Encyclopædia Dramatica should not be added to Wikipedia without an explicit consensus to do." Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: this is why I suggested "should not be added" rather than "may be removed" - guidance rather than rules. Thinking about it again I'd probably have used the word "included" rather than "added" but that is minor. I'm not sure I would vote for this motion were I an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf 

message: This is a make-work request asking Arbcom to do something with no defined benefit but with the potential of enabling harassment. I suggest that arbs turn it around by closing this request with a statement that anyone wanting to add working links to ED should make a new request after obtaining consensus in an RfC that such working links would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Johnuniq 

message: :This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*, you cannot add blacklisted links as an administrator. I just tried in my sandbox. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONGO: Clerk notes 

message: Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONGO: Implementation notes 

message: *Steve brought this to me to ask if it was worth pursuing, and I do feel it is least worthy of discussion. The case is 14 years old. Things were different. (in fact the drafters seem to have gone out of their way to say that ED is sometimes interesting and compelling, which was not my experience at all the few times I have looked at it) It's a disgusting, horrible site (apparently two sites now, infighting having caused a split) but we allow links to other disgusting, horrible sites, because this is an encyclopedia. If people want to go look at horrible stuff, it is not an encyclopedia's job to make that harder for them. I think that we can uphold the general blacklisting of the site while allowing the normal website link in the infobox. Frankly this is not the kind of thing the committee even involves itself in anymore, deciding what can and cannot be linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm now feeling like i "buried the lead" in my initial comment. Others have expressed it well below, we should just remove the committee from this issue and let the community decide what is pretty clearly a content issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looking at the enforcement log, there are three logged enforcement actions. Two were overturned in less than 24 hours, the third was an indef block that remains in place. There has been no further activity in the intervening 13 years. I am about ready to propose removing remedy 1, with the explicit purpose of leaving the matter to the community to resolve as they will. This specific part of the case simply doesn't merit committee attention anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dreamy WormTT(talk) 13:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONGO: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :
; Support
# As proposer. The committee shouldn't be regulating content. This should in no way be taken as an endorsement of ED or linking to it, we are simply removing the committee from the equation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion: MONGO 

message: :
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also my hesitation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "should not be included" does sound preferable to "may be removed", but I won't stand in the way herebetter to do something now than nothing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion: MONGO (alt)