[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Steve Summit]

We should, yes, "guard our editors and protect them from harm",
or however the saying goes.  But at the same time, of course, we
have to protect the *project* from harm.  And a wrong decision
here could really harm the project (not to mention that divisive
debates like these are quite harmful, too).

Protecting editors from harm must surely acknowledge the
existence of off-wiki attacks.  WP:NPA should certainly disallow
links which serve to attack, just as it prohibits other, on-wiki
attacks.

However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket
bans on all links to "attack sites", as the notorious BADSITES
policy allegedly attempted to do.  It's possible to justify such
an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but
a ban goes too far.  It harms the project, and does *not* help the
injured editor.

I believe there are three underlying motivations for enacting
absolute bans:

1. We must not condone the activities of the attack sites.

2. We must punish the attack sites.

3. We must shield injured editors from being reminded of the
   existence of the attack sites.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but numbers 1 and 2 hold no water.
The simple, sad fact is that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE
AN ATTACK SITE GO AWAY.  They exist whether we link to them or
not.  They exist whether we talk about them or not.  There's no
way we can punish them.  And linking to them does *not* condone
them; that's not the way hyperlinks work.

And then there's #3.  I'll be accused of being a victim-blamer
here, I'm sure, but fear of being called a victim-blamer is how
we let ourselves get boxed into extreme, untenable positions,
so I'll persevere.

Guarding our editors and protecting them from harm does not
mean that an aggrieved editor gets to make absurd demands for
protection or redress and have them followed without question.
In particular: if an injured editor declares that any reminder
of an attack constitutes a continuation of the attack, or makes
whatever declaration it is that somehow induces the rest of us
to enact blanket bans, we must politely, sensitively, but firmly
let the injured editor know that we've done as much as we can,
that the attack site continues to exist regardless of whether we
mention its name or not, and that the injured editor needs to work
through whatever remaining healing issues they have and move on.

We mustn't twist the project into some misshapen repudiation of
its former self just because some numnutz at an attack site did
something unspeakable.  You may not like acknowledging the
existence of the numnutz and the attack site, but I really,
really hate giving them the power to corrupt our project, or
worse, actively assisting and *enabling* them (by launching
into misguided knee-jerk reactions) in corrupting our project.
So, please, let's not.