On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central idea of the policy.
That depends what the central idea of the (proposed) policy actually is. I'm still waiting for a clear statement without equivocation.
- d.
My take on their position is that those that favor the concept of attack sites have as their means warring against certain sites (and I believe some have said this explicitly), but directly protecting Wikipedians seems to get half-lost in the shuffle.
To further examine the issue, [[WP:DENY]] (dissuading reputation, in the literal sense) is an unrecognized factor. When you go all out anti-vandalism, you get the CVU, which has been described by some as paramilitary.
Yes, ArbCom used the "attack sites" approach, but just because something was true in MONGO's unfortunate case does not mean that it should be blanket enforced. This has been mentioned before, but it is very applicable here.
--Gracenotes