-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:33 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I'm at least happy that it limits the application of this principle to websites set up for the purpose (I would prefer sole/primary purpose, though) or substantially devoted to harassing Wikipedians. This should *hopefully* reduce the wikidrama that goes on.
But it still gives free reign to remove links to attack sites that are used in discussing an attack sites policy. It also allows the situation where a user is accused of posting on an attack site and is not allowed to give links to show that what he posted was innocuous.
Please do not republish personal attacks.
Fred
I don't see how that's in any way responsive to what I said. Are you trying to tell me that someone defending himself by saying "this is an innocuous link", or someone arguing on an attack site policy discussion page, is republishing personal attacks?
_______________________________________________
If the link is to a personal attack, it should not be republished. Depends on what's on the other end.
Fred
Quoting fredbaud@waterwiki.info:
If the link is to a personal attack, it should not be republished. Depends on what's on the other end.
Fred
Um, where is this coming from? Is this from Fred as the great arbitrator, Fred as interpreting community consensus, Fred discussing what he would block for or what?
Following that question, do you really think that applies in general? This would imply that a discussion on ANI can't link to a personal attack and say "hey, this editor made the following personal attack. We should block them for it" but will instead say "Hey an editor made a personal attack, but I can't show it to you, so you'll have to go through his contribution list until you find it" That's unworkable and unproductive. If this isn't what you mean, some clarification would be nice.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
But it still gives free reign to remove links to attack sites that are used in discussing an attack sites policy. It also allows the situation where a user is accused of posting on an attack site and is not allowed to give links to show that what he posted was innocuous. Please do not republish personal attacks.
I don't see how that's in any way responsive to what I said. Are you trying to tell me that someone defending himself by saying "this is an innocuous link", or someone arguing on an attack site policy discussion page, is republishing personal attacks?
If the link is to a personal attack, it should not be republished. Depends on what's on the other end.
So you don't think there's anything wrong with linking to the site, as long as the link itself doesn't go to an attack?