[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"Wily D" wrote

> The relevant ArbCom case's proposed outcomes are here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies
> It includes blocking and banning anyone who links to attack sites, and
> prohibiting links to them.
> It does not really do a good job of defining what an attack site is.

Being an Arbitrator myself, I'm hoping for some improvement. By analogy with "wheel war", I think the AC needs to go behind the superficials, case-by-case, to get at what is really happening.

> People tend to read it anywhere from a restrictive "Well, ED has zero
> signal-noise anyhow, so there's never any good cause to link to it" to
> a liberal "Don't link to the internet".
> 
> Right now the community gets it right anyhow.  The MONGO ruling has
> created havoc, but we've managed to work through it anyhow.  A second
> ruling, especially if ArbCom continues on the path its on, will
> probably create additional havoc.  

The point is definitely not to create havoc. AC cases are particular disputes. They _do not_ set binding precedents. Those who extrapolate from them need to take responsibility for their comments.

>I trust the community to work
> through it, since we're already doing a good job.
> 
> To be perfectly frank, not linking Wikipedia Watch from the article on
> it will just give it more traffic, not less, just like labelling a
> button "Do not push" will get it pushed more often, not less.

A pretty good principle for an Arbitrator is to reserve 100% of worries for what happens to the enWP community (current and future). That leaves, let's see, 0% for off-site things. The AC's field of expertise is editor behaviour and policy on enWP.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam