"Newyorkbrad's proposal" didn't really address the question of whether there is a small handful of sites (the canonical example being the site at issue in the original MONGO case) that are so very problematic that they shouldn't be linked to at all. But as I noted on the talkpage of the proposed decision, I've cross-posted my thoughts to a policy discussion page for discussion there if people want to use them as a starting point for anything. Newyorkbrad16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't and shouldn't make a specific never rule, because it depends on the notability of the site, which can change. There certainly are sites, like the canonical one, we should never link to now; but that is fortunately because it is not notable enough. We do link to Wikipedia Watch, which is pretty clearly an attack site, however has gotten substantial press. (And has been the result of the poorly thought out Daniel Brandt deletion, but spilt milk.) Should the canonical site get non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources, we'll link to it. We'll interpret Wikipedia:Notability as strictly as we can, of course, we aren't masochists, but we are an encyclopedia first, and a community only second. But we shouldn't say that in this official decision, because ... WP:BEANS if nothing else. Nyb's proposal describing that we shouldn't link to attack pages, and should discourage linking to attack sites (though it doesn't quite use those words, since he's smarter than I am), does cover both those cases sufficiently. As I complained, it doesn't completely cover the notable-site-with-front-page-attack case, but I don't have any good ideas for that myself. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and Nyb's proposal is a lot better than nothing. By the way, I keep having thoughts of drafting Nyb for arbcom half a year early; or at least blocking anyone who opposes his nomination at the proper time as a blatant vandal... :-)--AnonEMouse(squeak)16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the large print, however, how do you feel about making those proposals, based on existing policies and guidelines, per Newyorkbrad and Alecmcconroy? I normally wouldn't pick on an arbitrator like that, but
the proposed decision page doesn't seem to be getting anywhere currently,
these do seem to have widespread popular support, and might even get enough arbitrators to support them
What do you think of the alternatives to "Malicious sites" proposed by Kirill, as principle 15.1 on the Proposed decision page, or the alternative proposed by Alecmconroy here? Paul August☎17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I like Alecmcconroy's. Kirill's has one important difference, that he specifies "[Wikipedia]'s volunteers". Alecmcconroy's says much the same thing for "specific living individuals". The difference is that Wikipedia's volunteers should not get special treatment for them written into our code. Amc's can be justified by WP:BLP. Kirill's is new legislation.
As long as you're asking me, I'd be thrilled if you'd propose:
15.2) Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing specific living individuals, including, but not limited to, our editors. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
The change
protects us from accusations of better treatment for our editors than our article subjects.
justifies the proposal with existing policy, instead of legislating from the judge's bench
incorporates the rest of WP:BLP by reference, so, if by some horrible occurrence, the harassment of our editors were to become notable in and of itself, we'd be able to judge it using WP:BLP vs WP:NPOV, the same way we'd judge writing about or linking to harassment of other people. (See my comment on Amc's proposal, your link.)
That specific section of WP:BLP contains wonderful language, such as "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words." and "do no harm" and "including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced". Incorporating all that by reference is exactly what we want. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you made a deletion on my talk page (you deleted the belittling title that one anonymous coward user add to my talk page ,btw, I have a guess who it was). I cant remember that I ask you (or any body else) to do so-don’t do it again.--Gilisa06:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of adding a map with each site when you brought back the satellite map. The info box along with a professional-looking map really enhances every article dealing with Ancient Greek cities in Asia Minor, as other examples that I provided. I haven't removed a single picture in my revisions except for that one because a Wiki map in unison with a large photo in an infobox gives you everything you want to know at a glance. I understand it was your photo, but I am trying to improve all of the articles so don't take it personally :)Monsieurdl17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Monsieurdl. Well I don't like info boxes. However the satelite map is helpful since it is more detailed. I've added it back in the "Geography" section. If you disagree let's discuss this on the article's talk page. By the way It doesn't matter to me in the least that the image was "mine" ;-) Paul August☎17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A template has been created that seems to have substantially changed the wording and the extent of the remedy you voted for at [[1]]. I am currently discussing this at [[2]] and I would welcome you input. I have posted this same message on the talk pages of the other 5 arbritrators who voted for remedy 2. Meowy16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.
The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.
I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.
If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion.Antelantalk06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to follow the normal procedures for archiving discussions on that page. If the consensus of the editors of that page disagree, then that discussion can be removed early. Paul August☎15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that some of those editors are complaining, I disagree. And starting another discussion about a disruptive discussion doesn't sound like a great idea. That said, I don't plan on reverting. - jc3715:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment there encouraging everyone to be mindful of the concerns that the discussion might be disruptive. I'm sure everyone will be mindful of not disrupting the DRV. I hope this will resolve the issue of archiving the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Friedrich Gauss has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an arbitrator involved in the Privatemusings case, I thought you should know about a recent event. An IP address has been autoblocked because it had been used by Privatemusings in the past. I have posted the info on the log sheet here. Happy editing. Icestorm81522:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the first to say that my judgement was distorted last month, but these problems do exist. Wikipedia has far too few volunteers who work at this kind of thing so the ones who do bear a heavy load. Notice the estimated 10-20 hours of cleanup required for the Virtualology problem after investigation. Is it really in Wikipedia's best interests for ArbCom to take a hard line on the volunteers who work very hard in good faith and fall short of perfection? DurovaCharge!03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the ArbCom page you linked to above, in support of this principle:
New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Blocking policy states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."
I wrote the following:
"It appears that this important principle is being ignored with regularity. It is much better to err on the side of caution in situations like this. Disruptive editors will eventually be identified and dealt with soon enough. Good new editors are a necessary resource for the project. If treated poorly they usually leave becoming a permanent source of bad PR, dissuading many others from participating as well. This is a serious matter. One good editor lost does far more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment."
I stand by what I wrote. While we need to protect the encyclopedia against "bad" editors, we should be able to do it without at the same time alienating "good" ones. If there is a reasonable doubt about which is which, we should assume good faith. That was not done in this case. As you write above, "these problems do exist". But I don't think that the problems are so great that we should abandon the presumption of innocence.
I don't know what I would have done in the instances you cite. I choose not to involve myself in such matters outside the the confines of ArbCom proceedings, as such involvement can become prejudicial. Paul August☎17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would not have taken either matter to arbitration? It would be good to have a clear articulation from the Committee about what constitutes an arbitratable administrative error. My own perspective has its flaws, yet please consider whether the Committee's present course may have a chilling effect upon administrative action. Some boldness is foolhardy--I'm the example of that. Yet I worry that in the site's present climate, good faith mistakes that would have been resolved with discussion a year ago could result in desysoppings now. And that those desysoppings proceed with such haste that they may overstate the former administrator's faults, thus hindering the individual's ability to rebuild a reputation. DurovaCharge!22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a common principle in Western jurisprudence, often phrased as some variant of "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". We even have an article on it: Blackstone's formulation. It's fairly well accepted. And, yes, it causes a lot of problems for the next people the ten guilty ones run into ... but there it is. If you read our article on it, you may read that Benjamin Franklin expanded ten to a hundred, while Bismarck had the exact opposite view, "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape". Personally, out of those two choices, wouldn't you rather be with Franklin? :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible arbcom process for dealing with wider set of related conflicts?
These conflict are all related to, what I perceive to be, certain editors' use of these articles (and potentially others) for the purpose of pushing nationalist views, breaking Wikipedia principles relating to WP:POV, WP:COAT, WP:SOURCES and WP:OR, to name a few. This user has also deleted articles or links to articles which which he does not agree with. I feel that I have raised these issues (POV, etc) with him but have met with no understanding. I have also nominated the articles Serb propaganda and 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion. The latter is still pending while the outcome of the afd process on the Serb propaganda article was no consensus. While I agree that the subject deserves an article, Serb propaganda certainly was an important factor in the Yugoslav Wars, I, as did most of the non-Bosniak editors who participated in the afd debate, feel that the current article is grossly POV.
My question is, rather than engaging in never ending reverts and engaging in lengthy and extremely time consuming mediation processes for each individual article / conflict, is there a way to deal with what is the underlying problem with all of them, namely WP:POV, in one single mediation/arbitration process? All the other problems are merely symptoms/results of the underlying nationalist POV being pushed in these articles? Stiflerecently mentioned that there was a precedent for dealing with conflicts related to Balkan issues where an "editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process" (where I take the first two to also cover POV issues). Could this be used as a basis for such an arbitration process?
If it becomes too time consuming to continously seek remedies against people who are consistently misusing Wikipedia to push nationalist views, only die hard natioalists and people with extreme views will have the tenacity to edit pages which attract these types of editors. Unfortunately, some of these articles are not notable enough to draw a large number of editors and the POV pushing is often quite subtle (though more often, such as in the examples I cite above, it's not). I believe an arbcom encompassing a wider set of smaller conflicts related to the same issue or user(s) would be an efficient way of dealing with these types of probelems. Your comments and/or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I must comment Osli73's claims. He says he is having problems with me and user:Grandy, which is wrong. He is just having problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you look at his block log he is constantly blocked because he permanently breaks Wikipedia rules:
00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)
09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli7 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ({{UsernameHardBlocked}}: {{arbcom}})
07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ({{arbcom}})
12:23, 5 December 2007 Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen
Regarding his claims that the problems are results of the nationalist POV being pushed in the articles he mentioned above, I also can't agree on that. If you look at the history of those articles you will find this:
The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.
I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.
Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.
Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.
This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.
The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring.
More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.
Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.
I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.
You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.
There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind.
However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I have returned Bishonen's evidence section as you left it. I would appreciate it, if you would do two things, restore her preamble:
Excerpt from log at en-admins, December 22 (an exact copy, typos and all). Posted per one version of WP:PRIVATE, as correspondence that is intended to harass or intimidate the recipient.
Not too sure it is a good idea to highlight the fact that illicit logs remain in the page history. That would make the removal a little moot. Anyway, Bishonen has since amended her evidence, so you will excuse me if I walk away here. Indeed, I'm unwatching all the connected pages Have a good new year.--Docg11:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
