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

Fred Bauder fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Tue Jul 3 04:38:32 UTC 2007

>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar at gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 07:50 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkkkk site link policy
>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.
>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; 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.

You got it. BADSITES was nothing but provocation. An attempt to overturn the policy it supposedly supported by generalizing.


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list