Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision

message: 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. El_C 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder. Fred Bauder 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on. Even if Cyde's decision to post to AN/I was in poor judgment, it was not in bad faith, and it was in no way actionable. You've got to be kidding me. Phil Sandifer 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde is not a party to the case and should be notified if any proposals involving him are being considered. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like it's being proposed that he be desysopped.  He should probably be notified.  Also, it seems a bit unreasonable to desysop someone who wasn't a party to the case and was not able to present evidence in their own defense. -Chunky Rice 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notified Fred Bauder 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The other cyde of pain

message: I know we're not supposed to mess with this which is why I'm making a note that I fixed some numbering, edit to undo if need be is , that's all.  Milto LOL pia 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you did screw it up. Fred Bauder 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Milto LOL pia 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: Surely FloNight is not suggesting a concentrated attempt at harassment by Cyde, Gmaxwell, SeraphimBlade, MessedRocker, and everybody else who expressed concern on the ANI thread about SlimVirgin. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we are not going to consider linking to sites that "present editors in a poor light" as harassment. I don't know how anyone could possibly claim that as anything but an obvious double standard, and the idea of banning anything that criticizes Wikipedia editors in a way we don't like is anathema to NPOV. And it's unworkable as a single standard, too; it would be devastating to the encyclopedia to extend that rule to all targets. You can't cover politics, wars, propaganda, hate groups or any kind of incident of conflict without referencing sources that present their targets in a poor light and misrepresent or exaggerate their actions to that end. ShaleZero 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why "negative information" is an unfortunately decided choice of words for defining an attack site.  There needs to be something that distinguishes between websites that say "Miltopia is a bad editor" from "Miltopia is engaged in an abusive conspiracy" from "Miltopia is a faggot".  Milto LOL pia 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify what I mean here: Cyde and co. linking to sites that say "SlimVirgin is abusive zomg" is not even in the same ballpark (I would hope) as Cyde linking to a site that says "SlimVirgin is a [expletive]".  Milto LOL pia 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this assessment. Criticism != harassment. ATren 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliberate attempts at harassment

message: FloNight talks about "sending the right/wrong message" a few times.  Just what is the right message to send?  That all of Wikipedia must submit to censorship any time somebody gets bothered by something pertaining to them being discussed anywhere on the Web? *Dan T.* 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps FloNight would like to propose her own remedies so that we unenlightened can see what the 'right message' is? 86.137.28.211 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sending "the right message"? 

message: Fred - do you really mean to suggest that the validity and good faith of a question or query about one's actions rests on whether it's eventually found to have been actionable?  Phil Sandifer 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On efforts made in good faith

message: Wait, users who link to attack sites may be BANNED? With no duration? One link, in good faith, or in the context of the article space and poof, you're perma-banned? Is this seriously what Fred and Flo are proposing? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If shorter bans won't work, after a warning, yes. But no, no surprises of the sort you suggest. Fred Bauder 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to rag on Fred, but he's either "too close" to this case or acting with haste or something.  Even if it were a given that someone wanted to be able to ban sites like ASM, his proposal is so extreme that it's hard to believe he could seriously want what he's asking for.   Maybe he's doing that old "Make your first offer high so you have somewhere to bargain down from" or maybe he just hasn't thought it through..   (or, maybe I'm wrong, and it's a wonderful policy).  --Alecmconroy 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording in the proposed enforcement provision (including "after a warning" and "... may be blocked for an appropriate length of time") would seem more consistent with the usual practice. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even when it's restricted to users familiar with the case, a block without warning for mentioning that ASM exists seems pretty harsh to me. ShaleZero 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Users may be BANNED????

message: proposed principle #12 states that "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication", and refers the reader to a site arguing that Hyperlinking to libel is republishing a libel. I have a couple of problems with this; firstly, I'm not clear on the legal issue, nor on the source cited. My understanding of Barrett v. Rosenthal (incidentally, the subject of an earlier Wikipedia ArbCom case) is that individual users were found immune from liability for the republication of defamatory content on the Internet under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This apparently relevant high-profile case is not discussed in the review cited by User:Fred Bauder (presumably it post-dates the review?), and the review itself contains the disclaimer that "This is a literature review prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as legal advice."
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am way out of my depth here, but should we really be bringing the legal system into this by using terms like "libel" and "defamation"? Not only are we apparently on very shaky ground legally, if I interpret the implications of Barrett v. Rosenthal correctly, but we're citing a source that would probably fail our WP:RS guidelines to support the principle. Most importantly, the principle edges way too close to violating the spirit of no legal threats. Is this of concern to anyone else, or am I taking crazy pills? MastCell Talk 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the community considers the link, with administrators reverting its removal, and the arbitration committee approving of it, the fact pattern might change. Remember that anything that any judge takes seriously is a legal hazard. Fred Bauder 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments in the next section. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it does say "may constitute republicantion" which is true.  It might.  As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any really definitive case law or legislation on the matter.  The whole thing is highly speculative, though, and I generally agree, inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is what it is, consideration of the question by someone versed in the area, but not an attorney. It is advanced as a marker of possible danger, not as black letter law. Fred Bauder 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's an interesting topic, probably worthy of discussion somewhere on Wikipedia. I'm just not convinced that it needs to be an affirmed principle of Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments below fully, I suppose my major concern is that "advancing a marker of possible legal danger" and "making a legal threat" seem semantically equivalent (cf. "I advance a marker of possible danger, you make a legal threat"). Even where real legal danger exists (which is by no means clear in this case), somewhat heavy-handed warnings about said legal danger tend to have a net negative chilling or intimidating effect on the encyclopedia-building process - I think this is reason why the community has codified WP:NLT. Giving ArbCom sanction to this principle, as worded, seems counter to that policy. MastCell Talk 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was trying to say was that I think that the main issue is that it's not just a warning/discussion, it's an Arbcom ruling.  If this topic were brought up at the Villiage Pump, I think it would be an interesting, productive discussion.  With Arbcom ruling it as a principle in this case, I think you're right about the effect it may have. -Chunky Rice 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Linking to libel is republishing libel" - is this true? 

message: I appreciate and agree with much, though not all, of what various arbitrators have written in the proposed decision, and look forward to input from the other arbitrators in the hope that a consensus set of principles here can be arrived at. However, I would strongly caution the arbitrators against adopting in its current form proposed principle 12, which states, "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication." 
I believe that I understand the purpose of this proposal, which I assume is to remind editors that they have ethical, and perhaps in extreme cases legal, responsibility if links to sites containing grossly defamatory material are included in Wikipedia pages. I also note that the proposal contains the word "may," and thus is not necessarily taking a stand on what the outcome might be in the event of a challenge to any particular link.
Nonetheless, I am concerned that this one-sentence proposal oversimplies a highly complex, sometimes unsettled, and continuously evolving area of the law, even apart from the question of which jurisdiction's law might apply in a given situation. In addition, the webpage at the cited link is extremely confusing and does not appear to be a reliable source. Most troubling, I am concerned that this principle would be misapplied far beyond its intended scope and could be misused in an attempt to create liability for our editors and/or for the project that might not otherwise exist. I would urge that this proposal be dropped or substantially revised. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, we publish in every jurisdiction on earth. While we cheerfully defy Chinese and Saudi law with respect to matters of substance, there is no reason not to conform to prohibitions against malicious publication. Fred Bauder 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this would be mis-cited in every content dispute about adding an external link between now and the end of time. It also might be taken as a statement of the Foundation's or the project's position on whether liability should exist. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the Foundation's lawyers should be venturing statements as to what legal liabilities might exist (in any context that goes beyond idle chatter). *Dan T.* 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution to arbitrators 

message: The most disturbing thing about Fred's proposal-- even if he were to limit it to ASM and only ASM-- is that it demonstrates a profound lack of trust in the Wikipedia Community and the Wikipedia Process.  
This case is a request for clarification-- all that needs saying is "Let the community decide if ASM, and pages like it, are notable enough to merit an inclusion".  
The fact is, the Wikipedia consensus building process works.  It works on debates between Israelis and Palestinians,  it works on debates between creationists and evolutionists, and it will work on debates between Wikipedia Supporters and Wikipedia critics.
The implied counter-argument, which I assume Fred endorses although he hasn't said so,  is that the debate (over ASM and others) is too important to be left up to the community.  Sure, the consensus building process will work on less important matters like Israel-Palestine or holocaust deniers or hate groups, but for something that could actually hurt Wikipedians, we dare not leave it up to the Community-- they might make the wrong decision, or they might take too long in making up their minds.
The community works.  Let us handle it.  We don't need the "grown ups" to step in and stop the consensus building process.  I have no idea whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion or not-- but I have confidence that the community will come to the correct decision about this matter-- just like it has on all the other 2 million articles.  
Arbcom trying to circumvent consensus building, even if for noble goals, is not what Wikipedia is about. --Alecmconroy 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: O, ye of little faith

message: I think personal attacks should be handled in a caring thoughtful case-by-case inconspicuous manner. It isn't caring to give attacks no consideration at all. It isn't thoughtful to draw up bright-line criteria. Case by case is necessary without bright-line criteria. It is not  inconspicuous to draw attention to personal attacks by deleting months old links, to disrupt a conversation by deleting links to evidence being discussed, by creating policy that says a link may be deleted any number of times guaranteeing revert wars and blocks and bans, by turning wikipedia culture into a you are with us or or against us warrior elite and wikipedia itself into a battlefield. WAS 4.250 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tell everyone that it isn't true that your "friend's" butt stinks

message: Both of these may well be appropriate. Or perhaps neither. FoF 13 does not indicate what policies were violated (leaving Remedy 9 looking disproportionately harsh), and FoF 13 further lacks timeline or sequence, and FoF 13 further references an investigation. Perhaps it is not appropriate to link the investigator's report; but the person or body that conducted the investigation should be mentioned. Jd2718 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't strike the above comments and questions, but I do refer readers to the next section on this page. Newyorkbrad has made far more knowledgeable and comprehensive comments on the same topic, with an (appropriately) much wider scope. Jd2718 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed FoF 13; Proposed Remedy 9  

message: An arbitrator needs to edit proposed remedy no. 1 to specify the name of "the attack site" being referred to. The reference was more clear when the initial decision was primarily about one site. As the proposals on the page discuss more and more sites, the reference is harder and harder to follow, and I fear the remedy proposal is now being misunderstood by some commenters to mean any site mentioned on the page. It may also be ambiguous to other arbitrators when they vote. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Fred Bauder 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Please do make this change sooner rather than later. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent need to fix wording 

message: I think the proposal by NewYorkBrad is defintely the right direction towards finding a policy that will have consensus.  The long and the short of it is-- we "pro-attack link" people generally don't wanna link to actual harassment anymore than the "anti-harassment people".  In general, we agree with most of the deletions, but we just want a policy that deletes harassment for the RIGHT reasons-- i.e. due to some of the many policies like Reliable Sources, Notability, and External Links.    
I'm convinced that there really is enough common ground that we can find a policy that will be compatible with Foundation Issues but will still allow us to safeguard our editors from harassment.  ED is a great example-- there's enormous consensus on all sides to delete the links to harassment on ED because it's non-notable, non-reliable-source bad-faith harassment.  
To count chickens before their hatched, it looks like this will be remanded back to the community, now that Fred and Kirill have both signed on to the remedy: "The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with the Foundation issues regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked."
Might I suggest somebody start a rough-draft policy proposal page so that we can brainstorm. I, for one, think it would be far better to do this through the policy proposals than to do it through Arbcom-- the main thing we needed from Arbcom was clarification that it was appropriate try to formulate a policy.  --Alecmconroy 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Policy Brainstorming is Very Good!

message: Having had some time to look over NYBrad's proposal more carefully, I'm confident that not only could a policy based on it achieve consensus, but actually, all its points flow naturally as corollaries from our current policies.  All the points taken together isn't just a description of a GOOD policy, it also is a GOOD description of current policies as they apply to Off-Wiki harassment.  Things we all agree on, like:  
*BLP applies to all living persons, even those living persons who happpen to Wikipedia editors.  
*All articles should respect the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.
*BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. 
*Harassment is grounds for blocking. 
*WP:Reliable Sources discourages citing extremist sources, saying "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."
With a little fine tuning and work, I think it's very possible we could find ourselves sitting on a policy that would protect us both from the Slings and Arrows of ED Trolls and protect us from the embarrassment of mass-purges of links to Michael Moore.
There still would be plenty of disputes on how to apply the policy, just like there are plenty of disputes on how to apply policies like NPOV.  For example-- I personally have no clue if ASM is notable enough to merit amention, and I've steered as far from that hot potato as possible.  But just having a statement of policy that has consensus would be a huge step towards resolving the disputes in the future.  
--Alecmconroy 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy Brainstorming is Very Very Good

message: "Further proceedings in this case are held in abeyance for a period of XX days, during which the community is urged to discuss, refine, and preferably adopt by consensus, policy language addressing the policy matters discussed on the proposed decision page and its talkpage. If consensus on policy language can be achieved, the need for an Arbitration Committee ruling on the issues in this case may be eliminated or the scope of the case reduced. In the interim, all editors are urged to act in good faith and in the spirit of the proposals that have been made with regard to the addition or retention of any links to disputed sites. Any remedies in this case directed at specific editors for conduct before the date this motion was adopted are rejected." Newyorkbrad 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to see them pass "Remanded to the Community" and then close--  revisiting the issue only upon a new request if that one day becomes necessary.  But I wouldn't be opposed to an abeyance instead.  potāto, potǎto-- same diff.    --Alecmconroy 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To be be fair to Kirril (s)he has been quite on the ball. ViridaeTalk 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need the arbitrators to step up and make a decision on this issue to help end the endless circular arguments.  Only three of the arbitrators have actively engaged on the proposed remedies.  Where are the rest of the arbitrators?  Come on guys, it's decision making time and the community is waiting for you to do what you signed up for. Cla68 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To be fair, I absolutely wasn't referring to Kirill (and yes, he is a he, I've met him in person).  My complaint is that there are too few arbitrators like Kirill active on the case.  All of the recent proposed decisions have been sitting at 1-1 now for several days, which is kind of disgraceful considering how poorly thought out some of them are.  --Cyde Weys 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought arbcom was supposed to step in and sort things out when the community proved unable, not the other way around. Mike R 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You've got to be kidding me.  The reason this is an arbitration case is because the community couldn't get it resolved.  The arbitration committee needs to make a decision because the community hasn't been able to. Cla68 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is necessary. This seems to be a case where Fred is the main arbitrator who has looked at the case. I suspect (with no particular evidence other than knowledge of how the arbcom works in general) that other proposals are being discussed on the list and mulled over by the individual arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be best, in the spirit of "Arbcom doesn't make policy", if they just remanded to the community.  Erecting an interim an interim policy is Mostly Harmless, so long as paragraph F is in place.  Of course, if I'm really going to look for the worst case scenario, there's some grounds for worry in that points A-F have been added separately, rather than collectively.  If only SOME of the points were to pass, but not others, we'd have a very dangerous situation on our hands-- but that's just me being hypervigilant. --Alecmconroy 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would urge a proposal that supports that paragraphs A-F/sections 26-31 be adopted as a whole, or not at all, rather than piecemeal to ally concerns as expressed by Alecmconroy. LessHeard vanU 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "Arbcom doesn't make policy", this really needs something which says "forget all the policy Arbcom made in the MONGO decision".  There was even a proposal to that effect in the workshop, but it never made it here.  This is a problem in the first place because Arbcom has, for all practical purposes, made policy, and it's turned out to be a bad idea. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible interim motion/decision 

message: "Thinking out loud" can be helpful for refining one's ideas in an informal setting. Conversely, when one is in a public setting with important stakes the presentation of incompletely formulated ideas can raise concerns. I appreciate the work that the arbitrators are putting into this case. But given the high-profile nature of this case it may be helpful if the arbitrators could fully develop their individual findings and proposals (perhaps offline) and reflect on their implications before posting them here.  This would help reduce needless concern on the part of some who are viewing the proceedings. Raymond Arritt 01:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transparency is not worth a little concern when staring at a sausage mill? ←BenB4 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation

message: an essay policy proposal has begun here Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment per discussion above. I am in agreement that this process (specifically this arbitration) is in stormy waters. Maybe this will help. Privatemusings 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment]] 

message: :"If the next unabomber's manifesto includes a list of our administrators' home phone numbers, we are not linking to it."
It has always seemed to me that the emphasis on linking here has been excessive. On one level, the fight over ASM.net was right in that simply giving the name of the site and saying what it was gave readers enough information to (a) provoke interest in the site, and (b) find it readily. That's the problem that will arise in our hypothetical case as well: if we admit that such a list exists, we will probably give out enough data to allow readers to find it. And isn't that the real objective? Having a link simply expedites a user's satisfaction of his curiosity; omitting the link forces him to work a little harder, but that's all. The case is even stronger for the incidental remarks and even the Michael Moore cases, where finding the offending site was typically trivial (though finding the offending material often was not).
I don't see much of an obligation to link to such a document either, just as I didn't see an obligation to link to ASM.net (though if it gets cited, the obligation is thus created). But even mentioning the thing is good enough to direct people to it, and I foresee continued strife over that. Mangoe 21:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I _think_ that mentioning a notable domain name, but not linking to it, starts to encroach upon NPOV.  Everywhere else we automatically link to sites when we mention the domain name.  If we deviate from that accepted practice only in a few specific cases, our article is taking a position that a site is somehow "bad".        Readers are going to instantly wonder "why can't I click on that domain name?".  Lots of good-faith edits will be made by people adding the links, having realized that we always link in such case, and the continual reverting of those good-faith edits would lead to unending edit wars.  --Alecmconroy 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. ViridaeTalk 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also should say, because I'm verbose, that the unabomber manifesto with addresses and names raises another issue-- that of our articles somehow being used to further an emergency threat of deadly violence.  Obviously, a case where we receive a credible threat of violence is a definite case of WP:Ignore All Rules, and after we pick up the phone and call the FBI, we should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent imminent harm to individuals.  I think there have been some isolated events of cases like this in the past, thankfully none real, where we got a bomb threat or a murder threat or something, and if it's credible enough to call the police, such concerns might temporarily take precedence over legitimate article concerns.  --Alecmconroy 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Temporarily is the keyword here. Loom91 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, and this is a perfect example of why hard cases make bad law.  WP:Ignore All Rules is intended to be used to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, not to protect a your feelings or your safety.  There is no conflict between IAR and WP:NPOV, because the second overrides the first; there is only conflict between [WP:BLP]] and WP:NPOV, because they overlap.  Unfortunately, posting the docs of hundreds of people doesn't violate WP:BLP either.  An example is 09f9, where some admins completely disregarded all the rules, including WP:NPOV, in order to abide by american law, until (I believe) Jimbo stepped in and decided something (I forget what, exactly).  What he's suggesting is to create a new rule that forbids outing, and overrides WP:NPOV, or to leave the system the way it is, with no rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.47.96 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The next unabomber's manifesto

message: Since Fred has made it clear he doesn't think he should be recused , and NYB pointed out that what precedent there was was in favour of the arb making their own decision on the matter, what recourse does the community have? Do we have to appeal to the board? ViridaeTalk 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that I don't like having  to do this, but Fred's refusal to recuse in my opinion gives even more weight to why he should do so as arbitration is the final method for sorting out problems in the community and even the appearance of bias or bad judgement substantially lessens peoples faith in the process. ViridaeTalk 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The "ask jimbo" thing probably worked quite well in the good old days, but I can't help but think there needs to be a second mechanism.  Perhaps other arbs can weigh in and determine if Fred should participate as an arb in this case.  I don't know if that would yield results, it is just a thought.    daveh4h 04:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the basis for recusal? That he has taken positions some people don't like? What a crock.--Mantanmoreland 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it's that he has advocated vandalism, which is an indication that he doesn't take the issue seriously and a slap in the face to everyone who tries to improve Wikipedia by fighting vandalism. --B 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This case does not involve vandalism, it involves stalking. Besides, doesn't one of the parties have to request recusal? As a party I would object. ("I object, your honor!")--Mantanmoreland 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about that multiple people have stated that they no longer trust his judgement as an arbitrator and wish for him to step down? I think that is a pretty good reason, considering arbitration is the final step in the dispute resolution process and if the community or a significant subset thereof does not feel they can trust one of the arbitrators then that reduces the effectiveness of the process? I have seen proposals from arbs that I have disagreed with before, but it would never have crossed my mind too support a call for that arb to step down. ViridaeTalk 05:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multiple people" no longer trust his judgement? 250 people supported his judgement in his last election. It would be disruptive to future ArbCom cases if committee members can be pressured to recuse by a relative handful of users. If other ArbCom members disagree with him then they can oppose his proposals. This thread does not bring us closer to resolution of this case.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear here that we're not talking about a good faith/good sense proposal where there is legitimate room for disagreement.  We're talking about a proposal to vandalize articles. Any person who seriously believes that redirecting BLPs to clown is a good idea ought to be stripped of the admin bit immediately before they can do any damage to the project.--B 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mantanmoreland, regarding the basis of the recusal: speaking only for myself, the clown proposal on the proposed decision page worried me.  First I thought it was an inappropriate joke, which I am prone to myself, but then he said he wasn't joking.  There's nothing wrong with a good joke, I just find it inappropriate to joke, acting in the role of an arb, on the proposed decision page, in a case that is alleging very serious things.  Fred is a great arbitor and should not take offense to people asking him to step away (in this case at least) and neither should anyone else, I would hope.  In addition to the clown proposal, the proposal that Cyde be desysopped (diff), written before evidence was submitted,  also concerned me.  I understand that this is not a court of law, but there has to be a line for absurdity drawn somewhere.  daveh4h 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the absurdity of the "rutabaga" proposal someone made? That showed contempt for the whole proceedings, and there were no consequences. Let's lighten up.--Mantanmoreland 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that was absurd too.  We agree that both were absurd?  The major difference being, Dan is not an admin, is not an arbitrator, and has nothing to do with this discussion.  daveh4h 06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If DanT was a member of Arbcom, Made the Rutabaga proposal, insisted it was a legitimate policy suggestion, refused to remove it despite substantial community feedback about the inappropriateness, and refused to apologize or recuse himself--  I promise you I would call for his removal.  And, I hope, so would you. --Alecmconroy 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If DanT was a member of Arbcom that would be the least of our worries.--Mantanmoreland 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to agree with that.  Not everyone is cut out to be an arbitrator, I suppose.  daveh4h 06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should run in the next election... :-) *Dan T.* 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest starting a proper petition page (maybe in the form of a "request for comments") and seeing how much support you can generate for asking Fred to take the clown proposal down. Write it politely, ask people signing the petition to be polite, and see what happens. Peaceful protest. As for recusal, I think that should be a matter for arbs to discuss among themselves. As for resignation, that doesn't seem warranted here. Something like the Essjay controversy, that warranted a resignation. Carcharoth 06:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion for Fred's recusal

message: the clown has left the building. Privatemusings 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realise he was an arb - was about to suggest he put that back until I saw his talk page. ViridaeTalk 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he's an arb. First rule of commenting on arb cases - read the list of arbs! :-) BTW, I've commented in the original Clown section up there, and it might be best to keep discussion up there. Carcharoth 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks James... 

message: One section has become the first to reach the 6-vote level needed to pass... and it's the "Freedom of Expression" one saying that "Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to."  That's a good sign, in my opinion. *Dan T.* 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ... except that Raul654, who provided the 6th vote, had previously been listed as inactive on this case ... so now, he moves to active, increasing the number of active arbitrators to 12, and the majority to 7. Sorry. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray for new math!. Thatcher131 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there are actually 14 active arbitrators, in base 8... MastCell Talk 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, if there were 12base 8 Arbitrators, then 6 would indeed be a majority... Thatcher131 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, it passes now. If nothing else, I've accomplished that. James F. (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One section has actually passed now... 

message: that a proposed principle concerning irrelevant, off-topic postings seems itself to be irrelevant and off-topic to this proceeding? *Dan T.* 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't disagree more. The fact that some people are using noticeboards to link to frivilous attacks is highly germane and shouldn't be condoned.--MONGO 18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As worded, this proposal is problematic.  A well-meaning user will post something legitimate, albeit slightly off topic and then a process wonk will remove the issue without addressing it. If someone posts an attack about a Wikipedia user, it can and should be removed right now - but this principle isn't helpful because it goes further. --B 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I think the gravamen of the proposal is that where a problematic link is contained in a "notice" that is unnecessary in the first place, we needn't agonize over whether the link falls inside, outside, or on the borderline of our anti-harassment policy; we can just observe that the notice is unnecessary and remove it on that basis. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My essay sort of discusses this in greater detail.--MONGO 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My essay can beat up your essay! *Dan T.* 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't we had enough of the Essay Controversy? LessHeard vanU 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it ironic... 

message: Per suggestions, I have copied my earlier proposals, and my summary understanding of the present state of consensus, to Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Newyorkbrad's proposal from the ArbCom case in case it would be of help in the ongoing policy discussion. Comments most welcome there. Newyorkbrad 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal copied to a policy talkpage for discussion

message: Any chance we could name this part of the ruling something that isn't generally considered to be an offensive stereotype? Phil Sandifer 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Phil Sandifer 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarbaby

message: I support Newyorkbrad's call for calm - he's actually responsible for most of the progress on this issue, and I feel we all owe him some gratitude. That said, following the post above I thought I'd elucidate why I disagree that this isn't extremely important.
I believe Wikipedia to be in adolescence. Following our remarkable growth spurt, over the next 18months or so our role and reputation in the real world will solidify into the 'full grown' Wikipedia. This is not yet written.
I believe that at this delicate stage, the combination of refusing someone like Don Murphy to have his article deleted, whilst simultaneously disallowing a link to his homepage to be dangerous. More absurd is the thought that we would ever disallow a link to Michael Moore's homepage from his article, no matter what is posted there. You see, that's the reaction of an organisation defending itself, and the moment wikipedia as a whole sees the need to defend itself, it is no longer neutral, it ceases to be an encylcopedia.
There is consensus that the Essjay controversy harmed wikipedia. We should learn from the fact that we had several months to fix that particular problem ourselves, and failed, with the damage only caused after the New Yorker became involved. So far this issue has affected a Sci-Fi author, movie producer and high profile 'documentary' maker - let's fix this one properly, and quickly (policy proposal here). Privatemusings 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm is good. Everyone needs to keep focussed on getting the best possible resolution possible, whatever stage we are currently at. LessHeard vanU 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I think this matters. 

message: With regard to remedy 3/3.1/3.2, "Policy Matter Remanded to the Community", as to which Charles Matthews has questioned the wording of 3.2, a more neutral or slightly broader wording might be something like "The community is encouraged to discuss and adopt a policy addressing the issue of disputed links to external sites like the ones discussed in this case." Newyorkbrad 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And come to think of it, I'd suggest avoiding the word "remanded," which typically refers to an instruction given by a superior court or body to an inferior one. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of remedy 3 

message: This sums up my opinion on this case to a tee.  Of course, that means that it'll probably get buried under opposes shortly. -Chunky Rice 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats what I have been saying from the start. ViridaeTalk 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually a little shocked that Fred supported it.  It seems inconsistent with other principles/remedies that he's supported.-Chunky Rice 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably understand it differently, but as I understand it, it is nothing new. Just an affirmation of existing policy. You can talk very aggressively about content, but once you start attacking the other editor, you've crossed the line. Fred Bauder 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what if the content itself (otherwise valid) "attacks" an editor?  That, to me, is the crux of this issue.  Throughout the entire case, you've been saying that such content is unacceptable, but your support for this proposed principle seems to run counter to that.-Chunky Rice 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're putting words in my mouth, as many on this page have. The harassment problem this case addresses is repeated assertions in public forums of allegations which have previously been addressed. For example, one claim is that Matamoreland uses sockpuppets. Well, he did, when he first started editing two years ago. And he got caught, was warned, AND QUIT USING SOCKPUPPETS. But that did not satisfy Wordbomb and still does not. He advances speculation about this user and that user being socks of SlimVirgin or Mantanmoreland, but when you check it out, nothing there. But he does not quit, he comes up with more which don't check out either. That's the problem, not legitimate criticism. Real information about the wrongdoings of another user, especially an administrator, are welcome. (Well, not welcome, but a good thing). Fred Bauder 12:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that behind this whole Cyde thing was that one of his allegations about someone being a sock of SlimVirgin did check out, and "We" don't approve of people trying to verify such allegations because even if true, looking into it "advances his agenda" (I should just make a bunch of sockpuppets, and get them listed on an attack site, and then anyone who tries to do anything about is "advancing the agenda" of that site. But that would be disruptive, so I won't. Probably shouldn't have even mentioned it, but it's not like it wasn't obvious anyway.) We shouldn't let the terrorist...um...attack-site-orists win by letting them dictate our actions, either directly OR by reverse psychology. This is perhaps even more dangerous to wikipedia as a whole than abrogating NPOV. —Random832 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don’t think that motion is inconsistent with Fred’s other comments or votes. That principle says that NPA isn’t applicable to content. Fred seems to believe that something is applicable to content in this context, but there’s no reason to suppose that the something is NPA. The MONGO decision wasn't based on NPA either as far as I can tell. I think the ideas, whatever we call them, that inspired that decision are the basis for Fred's thinking in this as well. 87.254.83.132 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its based on harassment. MONGO opposed putting phony information into Wikipedia, especially about 9/11 and certain folks attacked him rather than addressing the content issue. Fred Bauder 12:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed principle 40, NPA 

message: "'1.1) Links to AntiSocialMedia.net may be removed by any uninvolved user."
We learned form the MONGO case that this means: 
:ALL links to ASM MUST be purged, ASM will be added to the blacklist, and users who add any links will be threatened with a ban, regardless of how notable ASM should be (or become), regardless of consensus. 
Deleting content from our articles requires a scalpel-- not a bazooka.  An Arbcom policy should not be able to override consensus if an editorial consensus supported a link. --Alecmconroy 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One should note that The New York Times linked to ASM when it was relevant to a controversy they were covering.  But I guess we're so much more mature, sophisticated, and tasteful in our editorial judgment than they are. *Dan T.* 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times gets to set its content policies as we do ours. Apples/oranges.--Fjse44 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, it's not nearly so arbitrary. There's the way ethical, responsible journalists do things, and there's the way amateur bloggers do things.  There's the way that preserves our objectivity and our integrity-- where we don't set content policies in order to bully our critics.  Or there's the path that leads us towards disrepute. --Alecmconroy 06:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing a link isn't bullying anyone. If there are situations where we're beating up on someone - and there certainly are -  the solution is to stop doing it, not to provide BLP victims the opportunity to retaliate against our volunteers.Proabivouac 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I would "suggest that speculation of the consequences of decisions yet to be finalised is" important in helping to decide the exact wording and voting on those decisions when that speculation is based on past consequences of similar decisions as is the case here. It is to be preferred to not make the same mistake twice. Learning from a prior mistake is useful. WAS 4.250 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a copyright violation. Copyright violations are to be immediately deleted without regard for 3RR. Catch-22? WAS 4.250 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His allegations tend to be logs cut and paste from wikipedia or wikipedia diffs to begin with, so not a lot of creativity would be required to avoid copyvio. I've only seen parts of the site as it stands today though. I certainly don't know the whole history here or how links to this website have to used to harass editors in the past. I don't see much there you couldn't find on an any onsite RFC. -- 146.115.58.152 10:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  If you list the domain name, how can you not hot-link it, but still be neutral?  An unlinked domain name screams that Wikipedia is going to treat ASM differently.  And what does that violation of NPOV even buy us?  It will not restore anonymity to those who have been outed.  It will not punish ASM into deleting its attacks.   Human curiosity being what it is, it may not even decrease the traffic we send to ASM.  All it will do is allow us to feel vindictive at the expense of our own reputation. --Alecmconroy 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also worth considering-- if we name a domain name but do not link to it, we're gonna have to include an accompanying note of some sort that explains why the domain name isn't linked, presumably linking to whatever policy forbids linking.  Transparency requires it, so our readers can understand whatever editorial policies we have.  (Plus, that's the only way to prevent perpetually biting people who hotlink it in good faith).   In the end, that kind of a footnote is probably going to draw way more attention to ASM than merely linking it would. --Alecmconroy 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to ASM

message: One should look at the NYT article mentioned above, because of the way in which it links. What has happened is that in web-publishing the material, all the website mentions have been transformed into hot links. It's obviously rather mechanical, because in some instances they have referred/quoted subpages within the site in question, yet they have simply linked directly to the front page. It's simply a convenience issue for them.
If we name ASM.net, we've given enough information for anyone to know (a) that it contains attacks, and (b) how to get there. There doesn't seem to be much impetus her to link to it as a cited source, but on the other hand, it seems hard to justify not at least naming it. In doing so, the link is created, even if it isn't hot. We can hardly rely on our users being so computer-iiliterate that they cannot copy the link into a browser. We really cannot even rely on them being so incurious as to skip looking in the citation, where the site is named. Mangoe 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  If you list the domain name, how can you not hot-link it, but still be neutral?  An unlinked domain name screams that Wikipedia is going to treat ASM differently.  And what does that violation of NPOV even buy us?  It will not restore anonymity to those who have been outed.  It will not punish ASM into deleting its attacks.   Human curiosity being what it is, it may not even decrease the traffic we send to ASM.  All it will do is allow us to feel vindictive at the expense of our own reputation. --Alecmconroy 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also worth considering-- if we name a domain name but do not link to it, we're gonna have to include an accompanying note of some sort that explains why the domain name isn't linked, presumably linking to whatever policy forbids linking.  Transparency requires it, so our readers can understand whatever editorial policies we have.  (Plus, that's the only way to prevent perpetually biting people who hotlink it in good faith).   In the end, that kind of a footnote is probably going to draw way more attention to ASM than merely linking it would. --Alecmconroy 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The NYT links considered further

message: Discussions like these can always use all available humor. In the "Personal example" section above, I posted a link to a MALICIOUSSITE. A few users on the MALICIOUSSITE noticed the link and are expressing astonishment (sincere?) that the link has survived so far on Wikipedia...and that I have survived so far on Wikipedia. Well, guys, I'm still here, and so is the link. MALICIOUSSITES isn't quite policy yet, though it's getting scary close. Casey Abell 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be just Teresa Nielsen Hayden's "Making Light" blog that's getting its links purged these days. *Dan T.* 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal example &ndash; follow-up

message: Some editors want to delete part of Wikipedia:No personal attacks that is the subject of this ArbCom case. I have initiated an RfC on the talk page to gain community input on the proposed policy change: Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#RFC: External links to harassment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that some editors wish to remove the section of WP:NPA that was added without consultation and against consensus back in April, and has been in dispute ever since.  Risker 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I originally forked the  BADSITES text into NPA expecting it to be struck down or modified for consistency with WP:NPA#Removal of text. (Or rather, I hoped it would!) I proposed this  some hours before I went ahead and did it, but other than User:MONGO  no one else involved in the discussion at the time objected. Now, while it seems obvious to me that doing this was a bad idea, some version of it should probably stay for the time being while the ArbCom case works out and as the discussions on the alternative policy proposal continue.—AL FOCUS! 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I waited around for consensus , but only MONGO at the time was opposed to forking this material to NPA.—AL FOCUS! 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing personal, Academy Leader, but waiting 15 hours wasn't very long. As well, a review of the talk page archives of WP:NPA would have revealed that the same issue had been debated some months before in quite a bit of detail, and the consensus was that a section on external links was not required or appropriate. I do respect the concept of BRD, but what happened was you were bold, and then when anyone tried to revert in order to discuss, we were whacked quite severely. Risker 22:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I was a young Wikipedian at the time. I didn't at all research the NPA talk archives before doing this, I only looked at the then-current version of the policy page, which generally seemed to me to be well-thought out and realistic, and I honestly thought BADSITES could be toned down to work in compliance with that, or killed entirely. That the reverting on both sides continues at NPA  remains a significant part of the problem.—AL FOCUS! 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: External links to harassment

message: Why does remedy one (don't link, don't reference) have 2 support, 5 oppose, with many favoring a simple "don't link" alternative, but enforcement one (block those who link or reference) have almost full support, while enforcement one point one (block for linking)?  Surely this is an error.  Milto LOL pia 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy/enforcement conflict? 

message: are links and references to antisocialmedia.net going to be banned, and editors who make them banned too? We'll need to ban links to all the hate sites won't we? this is crazy!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.130 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this true? 

message: Progress seems hard to come by. Someone, I believe it was Alec, in one of the areas of this discussion mentioned an aspect that for me hold the greatest chance of success - rules vs. principles.
The community has failed to create a ruleset on this one, because we can't properly define any of the key terms 'attack site', 'harassment' etc. etc. - every single attempt has suffered from subjectivity, and the debate becomes instantly polarized.
This link will be controversial, but I'd encourage readers to click on it, take a look. This is the kind of link we're discussing baning It is Antisocialmedia.net - I can say hand on heart that I'd never heard of this site (except a vague, passing notion that Wordbomb was a bad user) before this discussion came to my attention. What strikes me is that this guy is making points, (maybe not very good ones - though i like the pun 'Orwell's that ends well') and that I am firm in my conviction that a healthy wiki allows us, when relevant, to reference a critic's points, however vitriolic.
I really care about these issues, and am working to move the policy proposal forward. I make the above point in the belief that we need to ground these discussions in real terms, because abstract terms haven't served us well. Please do not edit my comments. Privatemusings 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this a cross-posting of Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#after a breath of fresh air..... Why are you posting the same essay and harassing link in two places?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it is a cross post, in an attempt to engage all participants in what has become a somewhat splintered discussion. (your description of my post as an essay is unnecessarily flattering really!) Privatemusings 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that simply pointing to the already active discussion would be sufficient. Otherwise the conversation becomes more splintered.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  after a breath of fresh air.... 

message: I think this is worth everyone participating in and reading about this case reading: . ViridaeTalk 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most thought provoking.  I've written a little manifesto in response, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES, and posted it to the list. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness...if only the time you spent writing all that, as a similar essay I have seen repeatedly spammed everywhere, had been used to write an encyclopedia article...but, well, why do that? I mean, we're only an encyclopedia...oh wait, maybe not, maybe we are actually a blog.--MONGO 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh-- that's my character flaw--  I don't spend enough time writing articles!?  Thank you for proving the point-- I wondered who would be the very first person to respond to my essay by changing the discussion to back to me instead of talking about the ideas contained therein.  And it's MONGO by a nose! hehe.  Don't worry, I'm sure you're just the first of many-- that's the point of the essay.  --Alecmconroy 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extra irony points for the very first response to the essay being about me instead of about the ideas in the essay! :) --Alecmconroy 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nice essay, Alec. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good essay... almost as good as mine!  :-)  Seriously, it makes a few good points I missed myself. *Dan T.* 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Very thoughtful, and quite conciliatory in respect of the good faith efforts to stop Wikipedia from being linked to sites under certain circumstances by well meaning editors. BTW, how come it appears that the anti-BADSITES orientated disputants are so eager to write essays, like this one (well, everyone else is publicising theirs!)?LessHeard vanU 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for all the kind words. :) --Alecmconroy 13:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mailing list post

message: I see the war continues at WP:NPA with break neck speed, even while this case is hours from closing. It would have been nice for some guidance on disputed sections in established policies, etc., as we're probably already on our way to WP:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites 2 in order to tie up this loose end. Oh well, a little late for me to pipe up now. -- 67.98.206.2 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued edit warring at WP:NPA