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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Silas Snider [mailto:swsnider at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 6, 2007 11:18 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
></snip>
>> I hope you make a choice to support our productive editors and administrators and do what is needful to protect them from harassment by external sites. I know it is frustrating and offensive to be forced to do what you would do voluntarily and with insight.
>
>Then why not try a compromise solution? And since when did ArbCom get
>the power to determine who our 'productive' editors and admins are,
>let alone protect them? When was that added to the mandate?

It is implicit in the mandate. We are creating an encyclopedia. We will support those who work on the encyclopedia.

>> If a naive editor got caught up in a major controversy that is a shame. However, the bold pronouncements that the "vague" arbitration remedy was void and the ignoring of warnings argue for a disingenuous breaching experiment. A ban is open to such theater. The alternative is to open the site to drama, a move which would not have a happy outcome.
>
>This is a false dichotomy that insists on assuming bad faith. The only
>reason that we are having the current drama is because of the ban. I
>have a feeling that had the ArbCom not blanket-banned a website, we
>would never have had any major drama, except possibly that which would
>have been instigated by SlimVirgin over any link to WR.

No, we would have many links to a site which trashes our contributors. It is better to support our contributors.

>Also, I think you are taking the 'vague' comment a little too
>personally -- many people in the community think it was a vague
>decision in the context in which the edit was made, because of the
>ArbCom which apparently cannot make up its mind on whether the ban
>applies to all 'Attack Sites' or just ED. It is also undeniable that
>she was editing in good faith. To suggest that she should have stopped
>because she had been warned is ridiculous. We don't expect our admins
>to stop deleting pictures that are under bogus fair use rationales
>because they've been warned by someone who doesn't understand policy
>do we?

Users who are deleting images under bogus fair use rationals are contributing to the encyclopedia, a breaching experiment is just more drama. May I point out that her 24 hour block, which she worked so hard for, has long expired.

>> A dull site, devoted to work on the encyclopedia will serve our readers and productive contributors better.
>
>... Says you. I, and many others, think that it is not only very
>valuable for a very restricted class of links, but we also in general
>think that the ArbCom, and ArbCom members, should not be throwing
>their weight around in content disputes that are not part of an
>ongoing case.
>
>> Fred
>
>Sincerely,
>Silas Snider

When someone asked for clarification on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration regarding a remedy, it is our business to clarify it. And in this case, reexamine it.

Bottom line, our priority is to support our contributors and administrators and take reasonable steps to minimize harassment of them by external websites.

Fred