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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l