[WikiEN-l] Re: outside evidence and arbitration

[sannse]

I wrote:

> Camembert wrote (in part):
>
> > I can understand why somebody's behaviour in fora other than the
Wikipedia
> > might cause us to regard their work with a little more suspicion than
the
> > work of other users, but I really don't think we should make any
decisions
> > on what we do with them at the 'pedia on the basis of what they do
> > elsewhere. It's basically irrelevant whether Mr. NH (or anybody else) is
> > causing trouble outside the 'pedia, and I don't like the implication
that
> > if you're to edit at the Wikipedia, you have to behave well elsewhere.
If
> > somebody is a stirling Wikipedia user but likes to troll on usenet,
well,
> > so what? Similarly, if somebody is a lousy Wikipedia user, but loves his
> > mum and is good to cats, so what?
> >
> > And again, if somebody is a problem Wikipedia user and also a problem
> > elsewhere, so what? Our concern isn't that Mr. NH is at the centre of
> > trouble outside the Wikipedia, it's that he's at the centre of trouble
> > inside the Wikipedia. That's all that matters and is quite enough for us
> to
> > take action if we have to.
>
> I agree totally.  I don't think behavour outside Wikipedia should be
> relevant in Wikipedia arbitrations.
>
> --sannse

I've just thought - what *would* be relevant is if someone were to say
something elsewhere that directly relates to their editing on Wikipedia.  I
mean, if someone were to say on slashdot that their sole purpose on
Wikipedia was to cause as much trouble as possible, then that would be
relevant to arbitration.

The difficulty would be in knowing whether the comment actually came from
the Wikipedian in question or someone using their name.

--sannse