On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
Two problems:
- Screenshots are trivially easy to forge. AGF, and all, but no one should
trust screenshots in general.
In that case, the person concerned would be able to say they didn't post it.
- How would people be able to know what evidence was being presented
against them, to refute/endorse/comment on it, or for others to do so? Secret evidence?
E-mailing evidence to the ArbCom is common, particularly with issues relating to real identities and similar. The ArbCom then makes the decision whether the other party needs to be told about it. All of that can be done without the material having to be posted publicly.
I find it odd that people are struggling to come up with examples of when a link to one of these toxic sites might be necessary. :-)
As you might imagine, I'm not. So far the best claim we have is if one of them ever becomes notable enough for an article, we would want to link to it in that article. Another claim was that it would be required for an ArbCom case, but that has been disputed. A third claim was that it might be required in cases where people have posted to these sites, and are now running for Wikipedia offices. That seems to be it so far.