Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 8: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix font tag lint errors |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/143737757#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
Per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Principles|this]] ruling, is a good-faith edit linking to the outlawed site grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for [[WP:NPA#External_links|this]]? '''[[User:KamrynMatika|<
:Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. '''[[User:KamrynMatika|<
::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. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 11:
With respect to the banned site there is an enforceable remedy. Attempts to make that remedy into a policy are misguided as there needs to be a determination that a site is systematically engaged in destructive behavior before it is banned. Wikipedia has a number of legitimate critics. It would be grossly inappropriate to ban every critical website. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:Of course, but websites that routinely post personally reveiling information about our editors should never be linked to nor advertised.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think this just about does it for me. '''[[User:KamrynMatika|<
I think I misread the link you made. It is to Wikipedia Review, not to the banned drama site. I doubt a block was justified. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 19:
<blockquote> "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites]</blockquote>
Given the contents of WR, which has had dozens of threads and hundreds of posts devoted to attempts to "publish private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants", it is clear that the site meets the definition of "an attack site" as outlined here, that its pages "pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances", and that the block (after warning), was appropriate. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
: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. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::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.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 42:
WillBeback also recently appealed to DLTN for a change of behavior. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADon%27t_lose_that_number&diff=144482294&oldid=143018636]
I don't think this situation is ever going to change. The individuals behind the accounts are either clueless or malicious, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter which. Feedback from the committee about the proposed blocks would be much appreciated. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
:The blocks seem justified. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. They look correct to me. If your own name hadn't been dragged into it, there'd be no question at all about the propriety, so it's right to ask. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you for the responses. I'll go ahead with the blocks. Cheers, [[User:SlimVirgin|<
{{abot}}
Line 56:
This is a classic case of [[WP:POINT]]. I request the ArbCom condemn and stop this action. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:You forgot [[Allegations of Jordanian apartheid]] (created by [[User:Chesdovi]], now deleted), [[Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid]] (created by [[User:Bleh999]], now deleted), and [[Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid]] (created by [[User:Theo F]], now moved to another title). Anyway, Ideogram's statements are basically false. Most of these articles were created by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous case, and most of the people asking for "consistent" treatment on AfDs had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous case. In fact, most of the existing articles have easily survived AfDs because they are well-written, well-sourced, complied with all the policies and, frankly, were interesting - I encourage ArbCom members to read the remaining ones. You're probably going to read a lot of lengthy fulminations following this post from people who haven't been able to get articles they don't like deleted, filled with [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]], [[WP:AGF|bad faith]], and basically untrue comments. Just recognize them for what they are; attempts to get the ArbCom to handle a content dispute, by deleting articles for them that they don't like. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
::As a mostly uninvolved user, I'd encourage ArbCom to re-examine the ''behavior'' of involved parties in light of the amnesty granted in the initial case. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid]] was closed by [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]], heavily involved in the apartheid dispute, which was poor judgement on his part. While his close was reasonable on policy grounds, it's predictably touched off a firestorm given his prior involvement. Similarly, a number of "Allegations of apartheid in..." articles have been created, maintained, and defended by a group of editors - and it is reasonable to believe that this is being done to [[WP:POINT|make the point]] that the Israeli apartheid article should be deleted. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACentralized_discussion%2FApartheid&diff=146044881&oldid=146031410], where the tactic is laid out, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAllegations_of_Chinese_apartheid&diff=148466057&oldid=148459104] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAllegations_of_Chinese_apartheid&diff=148552337&oldid=148548840] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAllegations_of_Chinese_apartheid&diff=148608237&oldid=148607032] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAllegations_of_Chinese_apartheid&diff=148644143&oldid=148643169], among others. It would seem that these articles are POV forks being created to make a point about the Israeli apartheid issue, and it's intensely disruptive and divisive. Given the scale of involvement and the length and depth of this conflict, I think it's most appropriately looked into by ArbCom. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 05:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:::As predicted. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times, the person making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACentralized_discussion%2FApartheid&diff=146044881&oldid=146031410 this comment] didn't create any of these articles, nor did he edit any of them, so his opinion about motivations or "tactics" are completely irrelevant. One cannot "lay out" something which one hasn't done and doesn't know anything about. Moreover, he didn't at all say that the articles were written in bad faith or for [[WP:POINT]]; on the contrary, he apparently believes they were written to uphold [[WP:NPOV]]. In any event, it's not a good idea to keep repeating obviously invented falsehoods as if they were admitted truths. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
::::Fair enough, and I appreciate your viewpoint. I don't know Sefringle (or, really, anyone else involved), and I don't edit these articles, so your perspective is probably more informed than mine. I'm just saying that, from a relatively external vantage point, it seems to me a reasonable conclusion that these articles are at least partly intended to drive home the fundamentally unencyclopedic nature of ''all'' "Allegations of apartheid..." articles. Which I agree with 100%, including the Israeli one. I just think that this particular approach, if I'm correct about it, is unecessarily disruptive and divisive, and I don't feel I (or any other individual admin) has the standing to address such a long-running, complex, and rancourous dispute - hence ArbCom. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::(reply to Jayjg) Let's name names, shall we? People from the previous case involved in this mess are {{User|Humus sapiens}}, {{User|6SJ7}}, and, surprise, {{User|Jayjg}}. But it has already been recommended to me to create a new case, and I'm happy to. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Of the one dozen "Allegations of apartheid" articles, how many were created by {{User|Humus sapiens}}, {{User|6SJ7}}, or me? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
:(EC) As an "involved editor" (but not the creator of any of the articles listed above), I want to point out a few problems with this: 1: The above request seems to be in the wrong place, as it is not a request for clarification, but a new request that deals with a completely different set of facts from the previous arbitration; 2: As a result, it is in the wrong format, meaning among other things that it: 3: Does not list any parties nor state that anyone has been notified of the request; 4: It says nothing about prior dispute resolution (and in fact there probably has not been enough of that to support a "last resort" request for arbitration)... and probably most significant of all, 5: This is a content dispute. There has been some conduct, not mentioned by the requestor -- and not done by the people who have created the articles in question -- that might require attention by the Arb Comm in the future, but that would be a whole different subject from what is mentioned above. [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]] 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::I had not seen Ideogram's comment immediately preceding mine, so some of my procedural points may become moot. But its still a content dispute. As for his apparent intention to make some accusation against me, all I can say is, Go ahead, make my day. All I've done is comment on a bunch of AfD's and a DRV, and some talk pages, and pointed out some questionable conduct here and there. I created none of the articles in question, and except for the original article in the "series", I don't think I've ever even edited any of them. [[User:6SJ7|6SJ7]] 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 104:
With the tension between alternate definitions from reputable sources in mind, is there any clarification that can be offered, either for the principle in general, or for the principle as it pertains specifically to the ter"m "psychic"?
Thanks, [[User:Antelan|<
: The Merriam-Webster 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), which I consider to be highly authoritative and perhaps more attuned to current usage than the OED, offers this relevant definition: "2 psychic ''n -s'' : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." I believe that this concurs with the Wikipedia usage. The OED definition you cite appears to correspond to the "1 psychic" definition in M-W, which is a usage more philosophical than paranormal. I do not have an OED at hand to review any other definitions it may offer, though I am confident that the OED has many others beyond the one you identify. I would conclude that the Wikipedia usage is not unique or unsupported. Finally, since the Wikipedia article clarifies ''our'' intended usage, I believe that readers both casual and astute will understand that the use of the term does not imply the presence of actual psychic abilities confirmed by the scientific method. In conclusion, the decision is sound as it stands. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 113:
::*"''Jeane Dixon, the astrologer and '''self-described psychic''' who gained fame by apparently predicting President John F. Kennedy's death, died on Saturday in Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington.''" [http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F70614FD3B5E0C748EDDA80894DF494D81]
::*"'' According to previous in-court statements, Marks, a '''self-proclaimed psychic''' and fortune teller, agreed that she was responsible for bilking over two (2) million dollars from numerous elderly and otherwise vulnerable victims from 1994 through 2002.''" [http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/060510-02.html]
::Nevertheless, as you and I have both noted, the term is not always used in this way; it is also used in the "is said to have" way. So, in contrast to your conclusion, it strikes me that both casual and astute readers will interpret all articles invoking the term "psychic" differently, based on their prior experience with this term. [[User:Antelan|<
Due to the ambiguity of the term "Psychic" and the conflicting definitions of the word, we are left with only a few solutions to the problem. 1. We require articles about people who claim to have psychic powers state that the individuals are "purported psychics". 2. We change the [[Psychic]] article to reflect Wikipedia's accepted definition of the term "Psychic". 3. We avoid using the term "psychic" in such articles and only state that the individuals "claim paranormal abilities" and then elaborate on which abilities they claim to have. If we stick with the definition of "psychic" as someone who claims paranormal powers opposed to someone who indeed has the powers then the [[Psychic]] article must reflect that. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 119:
: I don't follow your logic that we are limited to the three choices you outline. I believe that the decision is clear as it stands regarding the use of the term. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the [[psychic]] article ''vis a vis'' this matter. I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::That's all we needed to know. All that remains is to update Wikipedia's [[psychic]] article to ensure compliance with your operative definition. Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Antelan|<
::Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a review. I hope it's not too late to comment. One of the most notable debunkers out there, [[James Randi]], defines psychic as "an adjective, describ[ing] a variety of supernatural forces, events, or powers." Psychics (noun), he defines as "designat[ing] a person said to be able to call upon any of many psychic forces."[http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/psychic.html] Randi is about as skeptical as it gets, so there's really no reason to add unnecessary qualifiers at Wikipedia either. Notice there's no "alleged", "purported", "claimed" or other [[WP:WTA]] in these definitions, only "said to" in relation to psychics (n), which is of course compatible with [[WP:WTA]]. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 138:
::I was asked for another opinion--a psychic is someone who has paranormal powers, and this would extend to somebody who think he has such powers. A person who knows perfectly well that he does not have such powers but pretends to have them is a pretended psychic--most stage magicians would come under such a heading. As the actual existence of such powers is hard to demonstrate, I would accept anyone who claims to actually have them as a psychic. I do not think this the least confusing. To those who do not believe in the existence of such powers, it would be follow that such a person is either self-deluded or being deliberately deceptive--since is it almost impossible to tell the difference, most skeptics would I think regard the two classes as essentially equivalent--especially given that someone who honestly believes himself to to have such powers--or who might even have them in reality-- might nonetheless deceive to make them appear more impressive. To a skeptic, calling someone a psychic is a negative criticism. To a believer, it's a compliment. Thus I would think it a neutral term, and it is satisfying to have at least one neutral term in this subject. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
:His version: "''"2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces."''" My version: "''A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces.''" The ArbCom made content-related findings; it is reasonable that our viewers should be exposed to their operative definition of psychic upon visiting the article. To me, it was unclear what definition of "psychic" Wikipedia was operating under. TheUninvitedCo clarified. Given this introduction to the article, I concur that "psychic" is a sufficiently descriptive term, not requiring any framing such as "alleged", "purported", "self-described", etc. [[User:Antelan|<
::We follow the ArbCom decision (not necessarily what an arbitrator says), but the ArbCom did not rule on the definition of "psychic." What Antelan has edit warred to insert in the Psychic article is not accurate, and merely uses other weasely words. In place of things like "supposed" and "self-described," he has put in "Apparently." He asked DGG for another opinion, and DGG did not agree with him. All Antelan is doing is POV pushing and going against consensus. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I find myself asking you to refrain from personal attacks with an alarming frequency, and I will do so again now. TheUninvitedCo used the term "apparently". DGG's opinion is well-reasoned and invaluable. In the request for clarification, I presented two reasonable interpretations of "psychic", and now I know which one is to be used on Wikipedia. Given the clarification and the updated "psychic" definition, it is perfectly reasonable that qualifiers are unnecessary before "psychic", but before this clarification it was unclear. [[User:Antelan|<
::::In reading the above, it appears that TheUninvitedCo said that using "apparently" is fine, but that using no qualifier is fine as well, and that there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with the wording before-hand. I'm only posting this here so that TheUninvitedCo can clarify for him/herself, but shouldn't this be a consensus thing reached on the talk page? If both are fine, then editors can choose which they prefer, and it's not really "per TheUninvitedCo". Let's leave the arbitrators out of it and work it out on the talk page. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Nealparr, this was one of the major content-related decisions of the ArbCom, which is why I asked for clarification here. If I correctly understood TheUninvitedCo, the conclusion was that "apparently" is fine in fleshing out the meaning of ''psychic'' in the [[psychic]] article, and then we don't need to qualify the term "psychic" with apparently/purportedly/etc. elsewhere since the full meaning will then already be contained within Wikipedia's understanding of the term. (If this is not correct, I would very much appreciate correction and clarification from an Arbitrator.) [[User:Antelan|<
Suggestion to Antelan: gather the diffs all my "personal attacks" and take them to an admin.
Line 241:
::The problem isn't making it clear that controversy exists, it's obvious that controversy exists. The point is that wikipedia should make it clear that Psychic powers themselves might not exist. The only way to do this was outlined by me above. Stating that "Psychic=Psychic powers" and simply stating that controversy exists and people doubt psychics doesn't take away the problem of calling someone a psychic when we're using that definition. You seem to be saying that defining a Psychic as someone who definitely has psychic powers and labeling various people psychic is acceptable as long as we state that controversy exists about psychics. This doesn't solve the problem. Simply stating that a controversy exists doesn't take away from the problem that you're claiming so and so is a psychic and that a psychic is someone with powers. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A [[unicorn]] is a "legendary creature" (i.e. mythological). [[Bigfoot]] is a figure in "North American folklore". A [[ufo]] is "any real of apparently flying object which cannot be identified by the observer". These have straightforward introductions which frame their articles. Martinphi, you have said, both, "''a psychic is '''someone with powers'''''" but that this is controversial, and "''we can call a person "psychic" '''without implying that the powers necessarily exist'''''". How do you expect us to understand what you are thinking when you don't even offer us a coherent view of the topic in question? I and others have offered opinions, which you have struck down without offering a straightforward alternative. In your view, and in simple, encyclopedic, affirmative terms (i.e., "a psychic is X" instead of "a psychic is not Y") what is a psychic? [[User:Antelan|<
::All I ask is that someone please inform me if a request for review is granted so I can comment. I think the Randi reference says it all, but I can provide other references as well. Otherwise this is talk page stuff to be worked out sans- arbitration. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 259:
:::::To each their own then. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00;">'''Kwsn'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00; ">(Ni!)</span>]]</small></font> 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::No attack sites was rejected. Or at least the form I have seen was - people seem to be thinking it IS actually policy though! [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If the article on Daniel Brandt can be a redirect, then surely anything ED-related can be a redirect also. What he's done carries far more clout and legitimacy than what they've done.
{{abot}}
Line 354:
'''''For consideration'': Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word ''psychic'' which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject.''' This is especially true given the content of the [[psychic]] article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.
Thank you, [[User:Antelan|<
:[[Heaven]], [[Soul]], and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on [[Energy (spirituality)]] but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like [[Prana]]. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 365:
: Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for giving it your consideration. [[User:Antelan|<
::Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??
Line 634:
:::::::::Is it detached from reality? Interesting. No, there is no reason to link to websites that "out" our contributors against their wishes. We now have a website whose attacks on our contributors is noteworthy? How so? If it is "outting" anyone here against their wishes, but is something arbcom needs to make a decison, then it can be emailed to them...and that makes it unnecessary to link directly to it.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::To be clear: is it your argument that there is no reason to link to [http://www.michaelmoore.com/ Michael Moore's official site] in our article about [[Michael Moore]]? Should we, or should we not link to [http://nielsenhayden.com Patrick Nielsen Hayden's official site] in our article on [[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]]? In a more recently contentious matter, how would you suggest administering the external links section of [[Don Murphy]]? [[WP:EL#What_should_be_linked|The relevant policy]] seems pretty clear that, in general, official sites of people or organizations covered in articles ought to be linked from those articles. [[User:JavaTenor|JavaTenor]] 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::At present, I see no evidence any of the sites you mention is engaged in the effort to "out" our contributors. Moore's site was previously doing this and the webmaster there had links that took one directly to two open editing windows on our site, which appeared to be an invitation to vandalize. Morton devonshire and I were singled out by a well known conspiracy theorist
::::::::::::So, if that activity was still going on at www.michaelmoore.com, you ''would'' have us delete links to it, regardless of notability or its relevance to a notable subject?[[User:ShaleZero|ShaleZero]] 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Line 680:
I'll try to be brief. I am posting here as there is a discussion about some admins who have had knowledge about the issue. Well, yes, i am one of ''them''. I got to know about that on-wiki (via email) just weeks after a RfC i filed against Proabivoauc back on January 2007. Apart from that, i don't recall Pro editing disruptively.
MONGO, i believe you are the only person in this discussion who technically cannot get access to the contents of that RfC. In other words, as Thatcher had mentioned yesterday at Pro talk page answering Tom Harrison, that RfC outcome would have been totally different if people could know who was Pro at that time. Now, i hope all parties get back to work and forget about the fuss. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
:I, as well, was aware of the fact, although not for as long, but I did operate under the assumption that the Arbitration Committee was also clued in to this. It is, however, my understanding that at least one Committee member and one Foundation official were made privy to it. [[User:El C|El_C]] 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to reiterate that if this was (otherwise) a problem account, we wouldn't be having this discussion. [[User:El C|El_C]] 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::Well, it seems that Pro ''chasing'' some banned accounts here (w/ whom he had conflicts) led those account owners to post online the relationship between Pro new and old account. Pro insists on <small>PRIVACY</small>, <small>ATTACKSITE</small>, <small>HARASS</small> defending his case. On the other hand, the ArbCom saw that reseting the terms of the probation is <small>WHATSHOULDBEDONE</small> and that process counts especially in cases such as this. There would have been no further discussion if Pro would have kept it at minimum yesterday. This case is probably a precedent and hope it would never happen again in Wikipedia. It is the trust of people on the project which is at stake here. I believe that's why we are having this discussion here. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
:There are previous cases where a user under probation has attempted to discard that account and reincarnate. In all cases of which I am aware, the probation was enforced on the new account, except in one case where the probation period had actually expired before the new account was discovered. However, this is the first case where the original account was the user's real name, raising the privacy objection. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::Does BADSITES have to pop up in everything these days? To edit under one's real name is to voluntarily reveal it; if one is to become anonymous again, one must accept responsibility for doing it effectively. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
| |||