Ah yes, I remember the last Request for Clarification. It didn't
particularly go the way of the supporters of the "deleters," particularly
when it became clear that subsequent ArbComm decisions specifically decided
against the same principles. That does not appear to have had any
particular effect on the determination of some people (well-intentioned
though they undoubtedly are) to have this purported practice codified into
policy. Is there a reason to believe that a second Request for
Clarification will have a different result?
Risker
On 5/28/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:14 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy
John Lee wrote:
>I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack
sites"
>refers to sites composed of nothing but
attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind
site is
>probably a good example - and not just sites
which contain attacks but
also
contain
other content.
Not at all!! Judges do not revisit their past decisions unless there is
a clear error. Any case is decided on the basis of specific facts. To
go back now to change the ruling would only strenghthen the notion that
Arbcom rulings form legal precedents. I don't know if we are ready for
that.
Ec
You can ask for clarification at
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification
I think what you will be told is that the language applies only to the
site involved in the MONGO case. However there is a general principle which
lies behind Wikipedia:No personal attacks that we should protect our users
from harassment, in a common sense way.
Fred
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l