Case Opened on 12:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision amended on 14:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 09:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Rootology (talk · contribs)
MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)
Karwynn (talk · contribs)
Hardvice (talk · contribs) (indef. blocked along with abusive sockpuppets)
SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)
Zoe (talk · contribs)
Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)
Weevlos (talk · contribs) (indef blocked by MONGO)
Nandesuka (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) (deleted, available to admins)

Statement by rootology

MONGO (talk · contribs), ever since an extremely bitter AfD in July 2006 (and it's fallout/appeals) has been at times civil toward me, and at other times not, but has over the past month (August 2006) begun to accuse me of Wikistalking himself and "other admins". This is distressing to me as I've been trying hard to make positive contributions toward the growth of the project and the encyclopedia. When asked to define the wikistalking, he would generally refuse to clarify or not reply at all, and I have been nervous about my editing in general due to this for fear of upsetting him, resulting in some sort of unappealable ban, and it has made my experience on Wikipedia since that AfD very stressful. I've tried to be nice to him--I've asked him for help and input twice on his talk page, for example--but he still persists with vague accusations of a bannable offense under WP:STALK.

I have been almost tempted to simply walk away and start over under a new name after a few months, simply so that MONGO would not know it was me, and so that I would not have to have his shadow looming over me like this. I actually DID close down my user page because of this, but decided to try again after a weekend--and his accusations and hostile tone began again. I believe this is all due to my being one of the more vocal voices that "stood up" to his stance in that AfD, and because of the fact that I don't think I'm intimidated by him--I respect admins, but I shouldn't feel intimidated. I opposed his viewpoint very firmly and stridently, under at the time what I read as policy, and in turn was attacked repeatedly during the process. I moved ahead, got on with things, and have since then worked to build Wikpedia--almost 2000+ edits in the past month alone, trying to do some positive work. But, he keeps hounding me with vague accusations, threats, and a needless attempt to have an intimidating tone.

I do not feel I should avoid any articles because he might have/been working on them, if our paths cross, simply because my presence appears to completely displease him. He's one of the more prolific editors. I have no way of knowing what is or isn't on his watchlist. I just want him to leave me completely alone at this point, not be free to try to use intimidation on me, not accuse of me any of these vague policy violations, and to let me work on Wikipedia in peace. As MONGO has in the past banned people simply for being things like "ED trolls", "sleeper trolls", or any other number of vague reasons, and also seems to have a habit of locking talk pages so people cannot appeal, I really would rather not have that specter hanging over me, making me think twice or thrice about every edit for the rest of my time here, worrying about displeasing him. I don't think my job should be to please an admin, but to build an encyclopedia. He's making it hard, unenjoyable and stressful to do that at this point.

Outside views: Making note that Tom's statement, based on evidence, is basically fiction. For Zoe's, I had no contact with MONGO until nearly nine months after I joined.

Statement by MONGO

Just continued efforts on the part of this editor and others to attempt to attack me since the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted. My perception is that rootology, et al, have wikistalked myself and a few other admins such as Tony Sidaway since the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was nominated for deletion. There was a failed attempt to restore the article and an Rfc was filed against me which was deleted. Rootology has repeatedly fought against my attempts to protect myself from harassment, argued above that User:Weevlos should not have been blocked, when that editor was using his userspace to post the same information that was spammed to hundreds of admins via email and talkpages, and no evidence can show that Weevlos ever recieved the spam himself via wiki...my guess is that Weevlos is partly responsible for the spamming. Rootology has "shown up" whenever it is time to attack an admin, especially those that have attack articles (against their wishes I'm sure) about them at the Encyclopedia Dramatica website. Though it is difficult or impossible to prove that rootology edits Encyclopedia Dramatica, (and even if he did, that in itself is not evidence or reason for a banning unless it was proven he was attacking editors off site), his long fought battle to save the Encyclopedia Dramatica article from deletion, his concerted efforts to fight to have it restored, his active participation in the deleted Rfc against me (since I am supposedly a big part of the reason the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted), his prior attempts to identify and collect information about my real IP address, his arguments with Tony Sidaway, and his active role in the most recent Kelly Martin Rfc, lead me to belive that rootology is indeed wikistalking myself and other admins that interest him. Should arbcom take this, I'll be glad to post diffs ad nauseum in the evidence section.--MONGO 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

I urge ArbComm to accept this case to review the conduct of Rootology, Badlydrawnjeff and the other listed Encyclopedia Dramatica partisans. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Badlydrawnjeff

Much further evidence can be found at the deleted talk pages at Encyclopædia Dramatica, the deleted history of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC), a deleted RfC that was put out concerning MONGO's behavior. I encourage arbitrators to review the deleted history of the articles in question prior to making any decisions on the matter. I also strongly request arbtirators take into account false statements made during this process. There are, and will continue to be, many. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

I'm named as a party and don't know what my expected role is. I know arbcom wants to see diffs, but I'm not currently in a position to provide them (I got hit by a car, broke some bones, and am recovering. Thanks for caring. Wasting time on Wikipedia personality disputes isn't a good use of my lucid hours.)

This isn't about content and it isn't really anything to do with policies (other than basic civility). It's a personailty clash dick-waving, and those with admin powers here obviously win. The whole thing smacks of elitism and treating admins like vested special contributors - violations of principle that go to the very founding of Wikipedia.

Here are some basics as I see it:

Rootology has nothing to do with ED.
I can say that as someone who does behind the scenes work for ED. Associating WP editors with ED membership and saying it as though it's slanderous seems to have taken on a life of it's own.
Nobody with a longstanding account here on WP was involved with the Mongo article at ED. NOBODY.
It's a wiki. Nobody here who is also on ED is responsible for those off-WP attacks anymore so than any editor here at WP is responsible for the Siegenthaler prank.
Rootology saw the ED AfD, thought there was a little too much personal vengeance involved and asked folks to be objective. Ever since then he's been branded a troll and ED sycophant by Mongo, et al.
Wikipedia doesn't have loyalty oaths.
This feels like a Joseph Heller novel. Having an account at ED should not brand people on WP as traitors. There are people who are admins on both wikis (omg! find them out and execute them.).
Mongo has been uncivil in his dealings about this issue because of his personal stake. He'd have no problem getting other admins to do any administrative work necessary if he brought it to them. Several other admins have asked him to chill out and let other people handle it. He hasn't dis-involved himself and in the heat of it has said accusatory and inflammatory things at many long-established WP editors.
Mongo has a few "cronies".
No big deal, we all do. Except their role seems to have been to inflame this personality dispute rather than get people to cool off. (Just view the statements here by Cyde, Hipocrite and Zoe and the wide brush they tar anyone who opposes them with.)
Is Rootology wiki-stalking Mongo? Don't know, don't care, and rather doubt it.
Is Mongo being threatening and uncivil to Rootology (and others)? Absolutely.
Is Mongo rogue? Not really.
- but no admin should turn around and claim harassment for someone daring to question their actions. As a principle any admin action should be transparent and the admin should be able to justify it. 90% of Mongo's admin actions are probably fine, great, good job. But the other 10% are questionable, and the community should be able to ask questions about them without being accused of harassment.

Specifically User:Weevlos: Nobody has shown any involvement with anything except a single user-subpage copied from ED. I don't see what is so offensive about a page an some other server that mostly consists of WP diffs, but whatever. The user doesn't deserve to be permanently banned with their userpages protected to prevent them from making an appeal of the ban based on the whim ("my guess") of a single admin.

Wikipedia is one of the largest and most visible websites on the planet. It may be the largest site that encourages user involvement. There has been major press critical of Wikipedia as a whole but I don't think it will take too long before some media looks deeper and takes notice of WP day-to-day administrative action. This massive personality flameout started because some anonymous wiki editor at a minor site like ED called Mongo schoolyard names. Is this really the appropriate reaction to a minor site? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Admins that edit controversial subjects and take controversial actions against opponents should be able to handle off-site criticism of their actions without getting their panties in a knot. It won't be long before a major news site does a piece about the "inner workings" of WP - what experience do we want them to have?

SchmuckyTheCat 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nandesuka

I was the admin who closed the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. This whole — dare I say it — drama has been marked by a number of parties refusing to accept community consensus. It seems to me in some sense to be a content dispute that simply won't go away. From that perspective, I'd think that it is not something that Arbcom should take on. That being said, the accusations launched both ways are serious, and I would not object to Arbcom taking this case to evaluate the behavior of all parties involved, if only for reasons of finality. Nandesuka 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zoe

I have to agree that rootology and badlydrawnjeff have decided to try to turn Wikipedia into another version of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and don't have the feel for collegiality and community that is needed for useful members of Wikipedia. They have harrassed MONGO since they came here, and should be sanctioned accordingly. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Judging from /Evidence, there is a possibility that this is being viewed as a rerun of the Encyclopaedia Dramatica AfD> I'm guessing that's not going to happen, because ArbCom typically does not get into content disputes.

In deleting the ED article a number of people made brave and principled stands, referring in every case back to policy and guidelines, and opposed by vigorous trolling, on and off Wikipedia, massive disruption of Wikipedia processes and concerted action organised outside Wikipedia and through internal spamming. As a result of the personalisation of the dispute, largely by ED fans and members, tempers became frayed. This is hardly a surprise, especially when attack sites are created. We should not censure sysops for enforcing unpopular decisions, we should offer them support and try to relieve the burden sometimes by having someone else step into the breach for a few days. Unfortunately this is not always possible due to the intensive nature of such disputes.

Although this is slightly above the level of the routine cries of OMG! Rouge admin abuse! from editors of deleted content, it's not far above it, and that only because the editors involved have been around for longer and maybe have a deeper vested interest in the content.

Has MONGO been uncivil? For sure. Grossly so? No. Has he abused admin tools? I think not. Is MONGO a habitually uncivil person and serial abuser of privilege, unfit for adminship? Hell no. The best solution here is for both MONGO and the small band of disgruntled EDers to bite their tongues and walk away, leave each other alone, and if they must interact then stick to the issues rather than personalities. There is no doubt in my mind that MONGO is a sound and valuable admin. There is no doubt in my mind that Jeff is a sound editor, and I nominated him for adminship. I don't know the other parties well enough to venture an opinion, but I have to say that this looks to me like a rather unedifying schoolyard squabble over something which is of strictly limited importance to the world at large.

Yes, I know I'm a johnny-come-lately to this, this comment is by way of context for the evidence which I posted and intend expanding. Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Named as a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept, to consider all parties. There are definitely some concerns about civility, consensus, and possibly stalking here. Dmcdevit·t 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Dmcdevit. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Harrassment

1) It is unacceptable to harass another user.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Combatting harassment

2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to attack site

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity

4) Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Guilt by association

5) Participation in a website which spoofs or criticizes Wikipedia is not an actionable offense in itself.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for deletion

6) Involvement by Wikipedia users in debates regarding deletion, even of subjects they are involved in, is not an actionable offense.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Support of harassment

7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Karma

8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Users may edit anonymously

9) Users, including administrators, may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Many edit anonymously

10) For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians, including many administrators, edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Outing sites as attack sites

11) 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.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Harassment of MONGO

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack article

2) A article attacking MONGO was created at Encyclopædia Dramatica, hereafter ED.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing on ED

3) MONGO apparently edited the article at Encyclopædia Dramatica. Checkuser was run and his ip disclosed.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Method of harrassment

4) The MONGO article on ED was made the featured article, links were posted on Wikipedia to it, and screenshots of the main page of ED with that article on it uploaded to Wikipedia. MONGO responded by deleting the links and images and protecting the article on ED. He was upset.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rootology

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was involved in the Bantown deletion debate and strongly argued against deletion of Encyclopædia Dramatica, see [1]. In addition to complaining about MONGO's efforts to defeat harassment [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], complained about Mongo's edits to ED Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details. Rootology was himself involved in tendentious editing of Encyclopædia Dramatica [7].

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Weevlos

6) Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has copied charges against MONGO and other administrators to User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence. These were originally placed on his talk page by Trazombigblade [8].

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn

7) Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has compiled evidence regarding MONGO at User talk:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

8) MONGO was criticized for removing the link to ED while it was protected and made this response [9]. This is while the attack page on him was the featured article on ED. The debate on page protection. He has made accusations regarding rootology and SchmuckyTheCat Discussion.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff

9) Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits under the same name on ED, but is lately inactive there. He has been mildly critical regarding the MONGO incident.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

10) Encyclopædia Dramatica (ED) is a wiki which spoofs and caricatures Wikipedia. Its content is provocative, satirical, and often interesting. It makes no pretense of presenting accurate information, focusing rather on what is termed "drama", which is to say, interesting provocative material concerning the internet and its memes.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Provocative material on ED

11) ED contains a few articles which sharply satirize prominent Wikipedians, including an article on MONGO which was featured on its Main Page. That article includes a number of specific alleged "misdeeds". There have been efforts on Wikipedia to link to, and in one case, import such material from ED.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Involvement on ED by Wikipedia users

12) There are several Wikipedia users who also edit on ED, including at least two sysops there. There is an extended discussion of their alleged responsibility at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC).

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of ED

13) As the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) the article was recently deleted. The reason given was that the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source. A number of Wikipedia users known or suspected of involvement with ED argued for its retention while MONGO and users aligned with his position argued for deletion.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fuckface

14) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a prominent editor on ED, Fuckface, see Image:MongoUSDHS.jpg which was uploaded by ED user "Fuckface" and used in the MONGO article there. The user contributions of Fuckface show him to be the principal editor there who has created articles which harass Wikipedia users.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rootology and PrivateEditor

15) There is substantial evidence that Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PrivateEditor are the same user Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence#Is_Rootology_an_ED_user.3F. Rootology has admited that Private Editor is his account [10].

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site

16) Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica website purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Wikipedia administrators and editors. Any Wikipedian whose conduct assists the ED editors in compiling and publicizing such information has acted contrary to the best interests of the Wikipedia community.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Links to ED

Superseded version.
~~1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.~~

1) Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 09:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

MONGO

2) No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors of ED

3) Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Dramatica and admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PrivateEditor

4) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rootology banned

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement by block

1) Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Amendments

Motion 1 - It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):

1) The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.

passed 9-0 and enacted 14:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Motion: MONGO (alt) (February 2021)

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 09:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

20:59, 22 October 2006: Jgp was blocked indefinitely (not intended to be permanent) under Remedy 1 by Zoe, and was unblocked 19 hours later. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
07:09, January 28, 2007 (UTC): K37 was blocked indefinitely by Coredesat under remedies 1 and 3; was unblocked 15 hours later after discussion at WP:ANI. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
01:00, 03 January 2008: User:Namescases blocked indef by User:Antandrus for trolling and linking to ED's site. See arb enforcement archives. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]