There was a hearing regarding the specific site and a determination was made to outlaw it. I think it is probably best to limit such a drastic remedy to sites which, after a hearing, have been determined to be destructive to Wikipedia.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 07:40 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder "clarifies" on attack site link policy
Recently, [[User:Kamryn Matika]] asked on the RfA page for clarification regarding the ban on linking to attack sites imposed in the MONGO arbitration; the specific situation she was involved in was the insertion of a link to source the [[Essjay controversy]] article. Fred Bauder has now responded:
-- begin response -- Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy. Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances, after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC) -- end response --
Unfortunately, this response is full of contradictions. Bauder is claiming that the ruling in question is "not policy", that it applies only to a "specific situation", and shouldn't be "generalized" and is not "good general policy"; furthermore, it should be applied only in "egregious circumstances" to particular sites that have been considered in a hearing. However, he is also saying that it's proper to block Kamryn because she was "warned"... regardless of the facts that:
- the link she inserted was not to a site that has been the subject
of a specific hearing 2) the link was arguably a relevant and proper reference for the article in which it was being inserted, and not an "egregious circumstance" 3) a "warning" that is not backed by valid policy is not a valid basis for a block, or else anybody could "warn" anybody about anything based on their own pet peeves, and expect it to be enforced. Can I just order people not to use the letter "w" any more, if I don't like it? 4) "Enforcing" this non-policy on relevant links to source an article seem to be precisely the sort of thing that's an 'attempt to generalize' the ruling in ways that are not 'good general policy'.
Furthermore, Bauder followed up his response by editing Kamryn's original posting to remove the link to the particular instance she was discussing. This link was to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to a so-called "attack site", and was necessary for readers to understand exactly what is being discussed. In doing so, he also reworded Kamryn's comments, putting in a reference to "the outlawed site" that wasn't there before (and doesn't make sense, since the original link wasn't actually to the specific site that was "outlawed" in the original ruling). Of course, with the link to the diff removed, it's hard for anybody to actually check on this, and see that the link was to a different site than the one covered specifically in the ArbCom ruling, and what context the link was made in.
Incidentally, today's New York Times Magazine article on Wikipedia includes a specific mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica and its attacks on Slim Virgin. I guess if anything that even refers to an attack site is itself an attack site, then The New York Times is now an attack site.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l