On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com>
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a
screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
1. 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.
2. 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?
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.