On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
On 02/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Information you have approved for publication in
the New York Times is
not "private information".
Define "private information".
If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names
without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has
been guilty of that at times. This would then make
wikimedia.org
unlinkable.
The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's
hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy,
whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily
specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user;
such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack
site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
Right.
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so
it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold
apply only to ED;
No, it wasn't. I was there.
however, it's equally clear that certain
individuals
are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the
reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
James, we've moved on to sensible discussion, no more straw-man policy
hysteria labels.