>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodmanny@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:54 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>Fred, at the arb com you proposed:
>
>"Discussion of an allegation derived from an external attack site
>engaged in harassment is unacceptable. If there is truth, the matter
>will, in due course, be raised by other witnesses. "
>
>The problem, of course, is that under the policy you are advocating,
>any such witness will in fact been classified by some as an attack
>site. If the encyclopedia isn't neutral, even with respect to our own
>people, it isn't worth the protecting, and we join the attack sites as
>non-neutral biased sources.
Resolution of this question depends on appreciation of harassment. In the case being considered, the person behind Wordbomb, a banned user has carried on a campaign for about 2 years, both on Wikipedia Review and on his own website attacking and attempting to identify a Wikipedia user. A number of fantastic allegations have been raised by the banned user during the course of his campaign. Incidents which happened years ago are repeatedly brought up as though they were new revelations, despite having been previously been investigated and resolved. Any scrap of stale information which might attract attention is advanced.
It is wise not to respond to such a campaign, even if it should though the shotgun method employed, manage to get a few strands of spaghetti to stick to the wall. It is the campaign of harassment which results in the site being classified as an attack site, not particular information.
Fred