-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 08:55 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, John Lee 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
On 17/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Please do not republish personal attacks.
This appears in practice to work as "Please do not discuss personal attacks."
- d.
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?
On 17/10/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
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?
Everyone agrees we shouldn't republish personal attacks, and doing so without an obviously exceptional reason is verboten.
Here is our basic argument. Is linking republishing? Fred believes that linking to a personal attack is republishing it, and therefore verboten. Other people, well, don't.
But you can win an argument so much *easier* if you just steamroller ahead and make sure the very thing which is being debated gets defined as your preferred interpretation.