"Wily D" wrote

The relevant ArbCom case's proposed outcomes are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites... It includes blocking and banning anyone who links to attack sites, and prohibiting links to them. It does not really do a good job of defining what an attack site is.

Being an Arbitrator myself, I'm hoping for some improvement. By analogy with "wheel war", I think the AC needs to go behind the superficials, case-by-case, to get at what is really happening.

People tend to read it anywhere from a restrictive "Well, ED has zero signal-noise anyhow, so there's never any good cause to link to it" to a liberal "Don't link to the internet".

Right now the community gets it right anyhow. The MONGO ruling has created havoc, but we've managed to work through it anyhow. A second ruling, especially if ArbCom continues on the path its on, will probably create additional havoc.

The point is definitely not to create havoc. AC cases are particular disputes. They _do not_ set binding precedents. Those who extrapolate from them need to take responsibility for their comments.

I trust the community to work through it, since we're already doing a good job.

To be perfectly frank, not linking Wikipedia Watch from the article on it will just give it more traffic, not less, just like labelling a button "Do not push" will get it pushed more often, not less.

A pretty good principle for an Arbitrator is to reserve 100% of worries for what happens to the enWP community (current and future). That leaves, let's see, 0% for off-site things. The AC's field of expertise is editor behaviour and policy on enWP.

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam