[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkkkk site link policy

[jayjg]

On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar at gmail.com]
> > >Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM
> > >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
> > >
> > >On 02/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is
> > >> not "private information".
> > >
> > >Define "private information".
> > >
> > >If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names
> > >without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has
> > >been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org
> > >unlinkable.
> > >
> > >The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's
> > >hurting the encyclopedia.
> >
> > It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
>
> The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily
> specifically apply to ED.
>
> Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user;
> such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack
> site may be grounds for blocking."
>
> This is clearly not specific to ED.

Right.

>
> Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so
> it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold
> apply only to ED;

No, it wasn't. I was there.

> however, it's equally clear that certain individuals
> are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the
> reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.

James, we've moved on to sensible discussion, no more straw-man policy
hysteria labels.