Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case
and are not principles in
the sense of being rules or policies.
Ah, right, so once we find that actually the MONGO arbitration /does/
cover this site, then arbitration rulings are no longer a precedent.
Precedents are rulings that apply to subsequent cases, but their
inapplicability may also be argued by those about to have them applied
against them. They certainly do not justify a refusal to hear cases
where the ruling could be raised in argument. The new accused may have
completely different reasons for acting as he did, and those may not
have been raised in the so-called precedent case.
Sorry, I don't buy that. ArbCom clarifies the
application of policy.
In this case they clarified that sites which harass and out
Wikipedians are attack sites, that linking to attack sites is
harassment, and that editors are responsible for their actions when
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
It seems to me that some people have ideological
reasons for wanting
to link to Wikipedia Review.
I have no desire to link to it at all; to me this is a civil liberties
I have no idea why they would want to do
that, as a source it is not reliable, as a site which outs and
harasses Wikipedians it is not acceptable.
I have no idea why they want to link there either, but consequent to
that I would avoid imputing motives to others.
I can't imagine any
circumstances which would justify a link, and that specifically
includes the circumstances as discussed here.
It's not necessary to imagine those circumstances. It is enough to
avoid prejudging any that might present themselves.
Every thread on WR is
an unexploded bomb.
In the real world there are people who see everyone with an Arabic name
as a potential unexploded terrorist.
Even if we link to a thread which seems innocuous
at the time, subsequent posts may well add gross privacy violations,
and we will have no control over that.
This adds presumptions about material that is not even on the offending
site yet. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that we should have any
control over someone else's website.
Are you really blind to the problems with WR? Or do
you simply not
think it matters that they engage in harassment and stalking?
There are other alternatives.