[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"David Gerard" wrote

> On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that
> > > caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack
> > > site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources
> > > (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of
> > > BADSITES-like policies).
> 
> > Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.

> Then for God's sake please say this expressly, else the querulous will
> assume you're justifying removing a well-source and verifiably notable
> name of an attack site that's achieved real-world notability. You
> remember, the actual cause of the case being brought!

Not entirely fair on the AC. We don't need to apply legalistic phrasing to everything we do. Our job in principles is to bring out what is and isn't acceptable editor behaviour, in terms that make some sense in the light of policy and _custom_. Our customs are rarely written down. But when it is just a matter of saying "don't stretch wording to your own convenience" and "don't game things and think you are being clever, because you aren't", these are in the class of No Office Politics Here 101. 

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam