[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close

[John Lee]

On 10/17/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/17/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hyperlinking a personal attack is tantamount to a personal attack now? I
> > guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal
> attacks
> > for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
> >
> > Johnleemk
>
> I know Halloween is right around the corner, but we really don't need
> any straw men is this discussion.  Let's stick to discussion of links
> to external sites that harass, expose and intimidate editors.


But if we avoid self-references and try to maintain a neutral point of view,
it really shouldn't matter whether a link is external or internal; a
personal attack is a personal attack. If we ignore the context and purpose
of a hyperlink for external links, why do we give leeway for internal links?

(Although you might be interested to know that the user page policy
> does now prohibt "Material that can be construed as attacking other
> editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is
> made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare
> for a dispute resolution process."  In other words, evidence is ok as
> long as you actually intend to file a case, but nursing grudges is
> verboten, because it can indeed constitute harassment of other
> editors.)


Nursing grudges obviously ought to be verboten. The problem is that several
statements on policy at the moment treat *all* sorts of hyperlinks,
regardless of context or purpose, as having exactly the same verboten
context and purpose. Fred's insistence that hyperlinking a personal attack,
regardless of purpose or context, constitutes republishing that attack is a
perfect example of this.

Johnleemk