[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[Will Beback]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 16/10/2007, Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Have you offered a solution?  Are the only two positions on this issue
>> BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of  a couple of
>> editors, no one enjoys debating this matter, and a resolution that
>> results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think
>> would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
>>     
>
> I've already suggested to the ArbCom a principle:
>
> "Community policies shall not apply to article-space content."
>
> I've also strongly suggested that the "external links" section of NPA
> be abolished. It's being used as an excuse to damage article content.
> The ArbCom's proposals on harassment (specifically Charles Matthews')
> seem sufficient to me.
>
> (Note by the way I've also done quite a bit of work actually tracking
> down, blocking and reverting the stalkers, with a goodly dose of
> tarbaby/briar patch, so I do know at least a little about the problem
> and am not just saying "go away and grow a skin" - I'm saying that
> BADSITES or functional equivalent is a disastrous failure even with
> the best of intentions.)
>
> - d.
I don't see any proposal from Matthews in the ArbCom case, except for 
some discussion at the end:

    Later comment: even if asked, the AC cannot lay down new policy
    here. WP:HARASS and our customs go a long way to limit any postings
    of external links that are designed to damage the reputations of
    editors. The community must hammer out fresh policy if it wants one.
    BADSITES rightly failed, because WP cannot be solipsistic about its
    place in the Web world, and because the cases involving ED do not
    create precedent. I'd like to put it this way: clearly enWP has the
    power to remove all external links to, and even mentions of, some
    other site. To the extent that Wikipedia is media and of increasing
    prominence, this 'power' is something real. Now, looking ahead, such
    power must not be used simply to bully critics. We must become
    diplomats.  Charles Matthews 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So proposal is to keep links in articles (if they qualify as reliable 
sources) regardless of how nasty the harassment on the linked pages, and 
no new policy to links to external  harassment. The only positive action 
would be  (if I've picked the right Matthews proposal) private diplomacy 
in order to try to get the websites to remove the harassment.

I don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, 
so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it 
does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal 
with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the 
project. Is that correct?

Will