[WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman at spamcop.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 03:14 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
>
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the last
>>action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would
>>have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent
>>of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very
>>obvious, wouldn't it?
>
>No, "don't do it" in the sense of don't do it. Linking to harassment
>sites is forgivable the first time, because poeple might not know, but
>it rapidly becomes unacceptable if pressed, because even if *they*
>don't see it as harassing, *others* (specifically those harassed by
>the site) may well do. I can be perceived as harassment without being
>intended as such. 
>
>>What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to
>>attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said
>>sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be
>>acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you
>>acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.
>
>In theory, yes. In practice I am still waiting for an example which
>is not obviously unacceptale. I am also pointing out that the fact of
>ED being the only site named in that ArbCom case absolutely does not
>mean it's the only site covered, per the prinicples I quoted above.
>Some people seem to think only ED is covered, I would say they are
>wrong.
>
>Guy (JzG)
>-- 
>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

My position has evolved quite a bit during this discussion. Theoretical discussion about how a ban on links to attack sites is a bad idea, futile, counterproductive, etc. is fine. Not welcome, but fine.

What is not acceptable is a determined effort, in the face of warnings, to repeatedly link to an attack site. Whatever the excuse given.

We have a responsibility to protect our productive editors and administrators from harassment.

Fred