-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net] Sent: Friday, July 6, 2007 03:50 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
Fred Bauder wrote:
If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities. However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
It IS a minor matter, but for the fact that a small gang of obsessives wants to flex its muscles by insisting on its right to impose discipline on anyone who links to a site they don't like, and then support their actions with the utterly spurious excuse that it somehow protects people. If you want these users to assume that you are trying your best, you must also assume that they are trying their best, and be willing to treat them as equals. If you choose to block someone solely for linking to such sites it's you, not them, that is making it a personal issue, smarmy consolings notwithstanding.
You must know by now that very few of us will even think of linkig to such sites, not even those of us who see such hard-line attitudes as a form of bullying. Had you chosen a more pragmatic approach, the arguments would have ceased long ago. People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community. Those who make such links out of bad faith are unlikely to confine thier activity to only one single act of bad faith.
Ec
I hope you make a choice to support our productive editors and administrators and do what is needful to protect them from harassment by external sites. I know it is frustrating and offensive to be forced to do what you would do voluntarily and with insight.
If a naive editor got caught up in a major controversy that is a shame. However, the bold pronouncements that the "vague" arbitration remedy was void and the ignoring of warnings argue for a disingenuous breaching experiment. A ban is open to such theater. The alternative is to open the site to drama, a move which would not have a happy outcome.
A dull site, devoted to work on the encyclopedia will serve our readers and productive contributors better.
Fred
</snip>
I hope you make a choice to support our productive editors and administrators and do what is needful to protect them from harassment by external sites. I know it is frustrating and offensive to be forced to do what you would do voluntarily and with insight.
Then why not try a compromise solution? And since when did ArbCom get the power to determine who our 'productive' editors and admins are, let alone protect them? When was that added to the mandate?
If a naive editor got caught up in a major controversy that is a shame. However, the bold pronouncements that the "vague" arbitration remedy was void and the ignoring of warnings argue for a disingenuous breaching experiment. A ban is open to such theater. The alternative is to open the site to drama, a move which would not have a happy outcome.
This is a false dichotomy that insists on assuming bad faith. The only reason that we are having the current drama is because of the ban. I have a feeling that had the ArbCom not blanket-banned a website, we would never have had any major drama, except possibly that which would have been instigated by SlimVirgin over any link to WR.
Also, I think you are taking the 'vague' comment a little too personally -- many people in the community think it was a vague decision in the context in which the edit was made, because of the ArbCom which apparently cannot make up its mind on whether the ban applies to all 'Attack Sites' or just ED. It is also undeniable that she was editing in good faith. To suggest that she should have stopped because she had been warned is ridiculous. We don't expect our admins to stop deleting pictures that are under bogus fair use rationales because they've been warned by someone who doesn't understand policy do we?
A dull site, devoted to work on the encyclopedia will serve our readers and productive contributors better.
... Says you. I, and many others, think that it is not only very valuable for a very restricted class of links, but we also in general think that the ArbCom, and ArbCom members, should not be throwing their weight around in content disputes that are not part of an ongoing case.
Fred
Sincerely, Silas Snider