[WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES

[Armed Blowfish]

Except... except the stalking, harassment, attacks,
and other hurtful things go in all directions, and
Wikipaedia did start much of this.

Yes, linking to attacks on other websites is bad,
as it furthers the attack, and may even be in
violation of British law.  I'm not sure, I am not
a lawyer.  But, at the same time, Wikipaedia
itself is a worst attack site than all of them.

But you suggest not communicating with them,
because doing so would only encourage them?

Okay, wow.  Look, I've been through all sorts
of abuse and harassment in real life.  If you
can't get away from them, for whatever reason,
ignoring them won't help.  They'll just raise the
volume until you can't ignore them.  Or can you
ignore a kick in the chest?  I can't.

Fear - fight-or-flight. These instincts are in you
because you need them, to survive.  Ignorance
makes you a sitting duck.

Those who have been hurt should not be forced
to face those who hurt them, as this may be
traumatic.  However, it may be helpful for others,
not so involved, to face these problems instead.

People on the other sides have been hurt too,
and there are things you can do to resolve these
conflicts without hurting anyone else.

As such, I strongly encourage the Arbitration
Committee to talk to the people from the attack
sites.

On 12/09/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> The group who discussed this included the arbitration committee, the staff
> of Foundation, and SlimVirgin and others who have from time to time been
> victims of harassment or stalking. We listened particularly to the advice of
> those who have have been harassed. The conclusion is that continuing to link
> to and communicate with harassers just encourages them. A firm "no" is what
> is called for.
>
> Fred
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: William Pietri [mailto:william at scissor.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:56 AM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
> >
> >fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
> >> There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We
> have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
> >>
> >
> >Despite having read through this thread, I'm not very clear on what went
> >on. Perhaps when some private group makes a judgment on behalf of
> >Wikipedia they could produce a short on-wiki document? I'm thinking it
> >would contain
> >
> > * a list of participants,
> > * the decision or recommendation, and
> > * the findings of fact on which they base their decision.
> >
> >
> >Part of the trouble for me -- and others, I'm sure -- is that the
> >easiest source for me to find is often the one under dispute. Having
> >something to balance that would be helpful.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >William
> >
> >
> >--
> >William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri