Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee wrote:
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case and are not principles in the sense of being rules or policies.
Ah, right, so once we find that actually the MONGO arbitration /does/ cover this site, then arbitration rulings are no longer a precedent.
Precedents are rulings that apply to subsequent cases, but their inapplicability may also be argued by those about to have them applied against them. They certainly do not justify a refusal to hear cases where the ruling could be raised in argument. The new accused may have completely different reasons for acting as he did, and those may not have been raised in the so-called precedent case.
Sorry, I don't buy that. ArbCom clarifies the application of policy. In this case they clarified that sites which harass and out Wikipedians are attack sites, that linking to attack sites is harassment, and that editors are responsible for their actions when doing so.
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
It seems to me that some people have ideological reasons for wanting to link to Wikipedia Review.
I have no desire to link to it at all; to me this is a civil liberties issue.
I have no idea why they would want to do that, as a source it is not reliable, as a site which outs and harasses Wikipedians it is not acceptable.
I have no idea why they want to link there either, but consequent to that I would avoid imputing motives to others.
I can't imagine any circumstances which would justify a link, and that specifically includes the circumstances as discussed here.
It's not necessary to imagine those circumstances. It is enough to avoid prejudging any that might present themselves.
Every thread on WR is an unexploded bomb.
In the real world there are people who see everyone with an Arabic name as a potential unexploded terrorist.
Even if we link to a thread which seems innocuous at the time, subsequent posts may well add gross privacy violations, and we will have no control over that.
This adds presumptions about material that is not even on the offending site yet. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that we should have any control over someone else's website.
Are you really blind to the problems with WR? Or do you simply not think it matters that they engage in harassment and stalking?
There are other alternatives.
Ec