On 6/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/06/07, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes(a)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.
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.