[WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to "attack sites"

[Blu Aardvark]

There's not really any reason for that, either. Common sense dictates 
that if a user posts a link to a site attempting to "out" editors (and 
that user is clearly doing so in order to troll or engage in 
harassment), then that edit can be reverted and the user blocked, and 
current policy agrees.

On the other hand, there *are* times where it is appropriate to link to 
such sites, and people should recognize this. For example, suppose an 
editor who had posted to WR was up for RFA. It would seem appropriate if 
a user linked to one of their posts on the forum to question them 
regarding it. Or, as another example, look at my ArbCom <s>case</s> 
lynching. Some of my posts to Wikipedia Review were entered as 
"evidence", and I doubt anyone would consider this to have been 
inappropriate.

The problem with adding new policies or amending existent policies to 
address the issue of users posting such links is that it is essentially 
the same as telling them not to stuff beans up their nose. Most 
good-faith editors wouldn't link to such sites, except for in a select 
few circumstances where it might be appropriate to do so. But trolls and 
other bad-faith users, upon seeing such a policy, will actually *look* 
for the problematic websites.

Stirring up drama over this issue actually draws more attention to the 
websites you are trying to limit the effect of. Probably not a good idea.


Slim Virgin wrote:
> I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about
> attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>